I find it very telling that evofundies pretend that every educated person agrees with them.
I would hardly make such an assertion. Most people who support evolution do not understand it. Personally, I could not care less how speciation happens.
However, I will assert that ID is based on premises and assumptions that are unambiguously mathematically invalid. Therefore, I will assert that ID as currently formulated is utter nonsense. It does not mean evolution is the correct theory either, as there are a multitude of possible hypotheses other than the usual false dichotomy of evolution and creationism, but at least evolution is mathematically valid at a basic conceptual level regardless of its applicability to this particular case.
We can start by noting that educated ID advocates like Behe and Denton accept common descent as a fact.
That's a significant point of agreement.
I find it telling that you offer only name-calling, not rational argument or even polite discussion.
So, here is some of the actual data that the theory of evolution works with. Enjoy.
Fossil: KNM-WT 15000
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38