"From my experience, about 90% of the questions raised by IDers come from a lack of understanding regarding biology, biochemistry, and the Theory of Evolution."
***My experience has been in a similar vein as to what Mamzelle called you on: arrogance of scientism. The argumentation often moves to some fine point of genetics or biochemistry that only PhD's know about, and they resoundly ridicule any other scientist who dares question their assumptions. Case in point:
Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467986/posts
By characterizing the opposition as ignorant, one effectively creates a stratified intellectual priesthood environment and poisons the well for anyone who dares take you on. This has been going on too long, as witnessed by the fact that the president of the US thinks it makes sense to teach both philosophies side by side. If the scientific establishment had not been so arrogant and bothered to address these points of dispute with their theories, the average intellectual dude (GWB being an example) wouldn't find the need to have both sides presented.
I have also noticed a similar sort of head-in-the-sand attitude from the creationist side, so I'm frustrated as I try to come up to speed on these issues.
As far as I can tell, we would not be having these discussions if the numbers were not compelling. It's not like your bird flapping argument, it's more on the lines of the chances of a protein doing its thing are 1 in 10^260, whereas 10^50 is considered impossible.
If that argument is invalid, point us where to read up on it. Hopefully, one doesn't have to be a PhD in chemistry to understand it.
Would you also complain about arrogance if the subject were being allowed to do surgery without advanced training instead of critiquing evolution without training?
>>If that argument is invalid, point us where to read up on it. Hopefully, one doesn't have to be a PhD in chemistry to understand it. <<
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html