My point is simple. If you intend to be a critic of science you must understand it and not argue against straw men.
If you debate, you must understand your opponent's position and be able to state it correctly.
I have noticed that most of the evolution critics on these threads are unaware of what biologists have to say about evolution. This could be remedied by a bit of reading. Ernst Mayr's This is Biology would be a good start.
Oddly enough, most of the ID supporters on these threads have no idea what the ideological founders of ID have to say. Posters on these threads are generally unaware that Behe, Denton and, to some extent, Dembsky, accept the historical fact of evolution even while being skeptical of natural selection as the only shaping force.
Nothing on these threads is so technical that it is inaccessible to someone interested in learning. Having strong opinions on a technical subject without basic knowledge is inexcusable.
One of the attitudes that is becoming popular is to demand people find out things for themselves. Why not rather join the conversation? I've discovered that no matter how well others understand things and post them on various websites, and publish their ideas, and teach them, it helps me to understand things for myself by "professing" the views myself. It's a pedagogic stance that is more interested in dissemination of knowledge rather than score-keeping with insuations.
The advice that I have tried to follow: "Whatever is true, whatever is honest, whatever is of good report, think about these things. "
With constant Hope,