That's what I'm asking you. Are they all idiotic?
I've already said that I haven't seen a good one. But maybe I've misunderstood, or missed the killer ones. Behe and Demski's output is singularly unimpressive; it is easy to see why they usually skip the peer-review process. Largely arguments from personal ignorance and probability theory being applied to processes that are not what any biologist believes to happen. There is little recognition in their work of what the other side's arguments might be. Dembski likes to argue from authority; He replies to critiques if they are from people less highly qualified than himself using argument from personal authority while completely ignoring critiques from his peers. And so on.
I've already said that I haven't seen a good one.
_______________________________________________________
Have you ever been exposed to Lee Spetner's thinking? One of his criticisms is that the evolutionists haven't adequately measured the amount of genome development they propose happened, the amount of time they think was available for it to happen, and reconciled the two based on what we know about the rate of various types of mutations, the likelihood they will bring an advantage, the number of beneficial mutations likely to be necessary to make a new species etc. I find that line of inquiry interesting. It seems to me an ID type and an evolutionist type should be able to have a productive discussion around it because both can discuss measurable things that happen under observation and project frequencies etc.
There are lots of other issues like this too.
Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's classic on scientific revolutions?
One thing I've observed is that the pro-evolution folks unhesitatingly insist that if someone could undermine evolutionary theory, they could make a real name for themself and that science is value neutral in this regard. However, in my observations, the "science" around AIDS and the "science" around global warming and the "science" around homosexuality or male female differences etc is highly politically charged and that those who don't towe the line can quicky become professionally marginalized.
Kuhn's book suggests this is the NORM for the scientific community not the exception during times when a theory is being challenged. The allocation of research funding is far from value free in many fields.