I am willing to listen (and have to decades) to the other side of the evolution argument. However, I see a looooooong list of contradictions and inaccuracies that Darwinists refuse to address. That is BAD science.
God created our intellect and we should pursue our science with all vigor . . . but not refuse to acknowledge things that don't fit with our "theory" just because it may require admitting "something higher" than man exists.
Such as? List them and I'll address them.
Prediction: You will respond with a list of misrepresentations about science from creationist sources, not actual "contradictions and inaccuracies" that "Darwinists refuse to address".
The supposition of intervention of a higher power in the workings of nature is indeed a legitimate discussion topic, but one that belongs in the field of philosophy, not natural sciences. Biology, physics, etc. are called NATURAL sciences for a good reason - the assumption of naturalism is required in science to produce any predictable or applicable results.
Intelligent design is not just bad science, it is not science at all. Science deals with predictability and strict consequence; to say we have reduced God (aka the "Designer") to a predictable scientific entity is not only an overextension of science but an insult to religion as well, in my humble opinion.
There is already an appropriate procedure for the introduction of new scientific theories via the peer review process, and despite the "conspiracy" claims of some, traditional theories undergo challenges & adjustments in this forum all the time, within the important constraints of observed results. The problems arise when people try to sidestep the legitimate process through bad websites, inaccurate books and political pandering (this is what universally irks scientists).