"Science does not blindly accept evolution. If you studied the history of biology you would know that many alternatives have been explored for more than 140 years. As a critic, it is your responsibility to know the history of this criticism and not continually bring up discarded arguments."
My point eludes you. Heres a light for the way:
Point out to the nay-sayers more about the history. Don't assume they know or even should know.
If you have reason to believe something, SHARE IT. Don't just assume that those making arguements know this already.
If the problem IS on our end, tell us WHY. Don't just say "no, they talked about it before, that's wrong"
Tell us what leads to that conclusion.
"You should also know that most ID proponents accept the fact of evolution and the established scientific age of the earth. What is being argued about is the mechanism of evolution."
No sh!t? Really? You mean the facts that I've been saying are EXACTLY didn't elude you? It just got ignored?
I've been advocating ID this entire time. You just inserted "creationism" each time.
ID is a version of creationism. Its central premise is that the evidence we see cannot be explained by natural causes. Since this is the opposite of the sssumptions of science, you should expect to be ignored unless you come up with some killer evidence.
So far, the only evidence for ID is that biology can't explain everything. Since science doesn't claim to explain everything, this is not an argument.