As I said, I don't expect to convince any die-hard Darwinists, so there's no point in being snide about it.
Actually the point is that you were snide about it from the start.
And speaking for myself at least, I'd be glad to chance my conclusions if anyone could present me with evidence that warranted it.
What you "die-hard" creationists and IDists don't understand is that we can be anti ID and anti creationism without being "die hard" evolutionists.
At issue is that evolution is science and ID and creationism are not.
The reason is one of process, not of outcome. And the difference is understanding what science is and what it is not.
Unfortunately, you creationists do not have a working definition of science (see my earlier post). You incorrectly believe that because creationism and/or ID are plausible explanations, that makes them science.
Well, wrong.
And evolution isn't a "religion" for us either. (I happen to be Christian).
A more appropriate metaphor would be exasperation. It's as if we explained to someone that 2+2=4, and they come back and argue that 2+2=5. After arguing it a hundred times we simply get exasperated with ignorence.
Whether you see reality as the greater derived from the lesser or as the lesser derived from the greater depends on your viewpoint, your worldview.
And worldviews cannot be "proven." They are also not impinging on pure science.
So this debate is irreconcilable and pointless.