Something just occurred to me. If you look at all the ID/Darwinist debates happening on the internet, you find a couple of things. First, holders of scientific degrees (at least the vociferous Darwinist ones engaged in the debate) are extremely proud of their achievement. Pretty much to the extent that they regard themselves as being the best and the brightest, and even to such an extent that they regard other fields (philosophy, theology, engineering) to be far below them, offering no valid insights into any important questions. So the implicit truth that energizes their pride must be:
Science is a very difficult undertaking. Only the intellectually exceptional and strong of heart can cut it.
Okay, accepting that, I think one would conclude that given the difficulty, it would be the case that the establishment of scientific truth is a struggle; all good scientists are looking through a glass darkly, trying their best to come up with interpretations of all available data, daring to make bold conjectures, buck convention to come up with daring new insights, etc. Since all scientists are struggling at this very difficult and important job, I would expect differing interpretations to be taken in good faith. But this is not, in fact what I find at all. I cannot count the times I've heard such as Dembski and Behe referred to as "dense" or "frauds" or "liars" simply because they offer a different interpretation. They are not merely wrong, as any brave pioneer could easily turn out to be, but they are "IDiots", or "retarded", and even a person without a science education should be able to see that they have been "soundly refuted, years and years ago".
The truth being communicated:
Science is easy and only a retard or liar could get it wrong.
It seems, then, that Darwinist scientists are either intellectual supermen, or merely the non-retarded. I guess it depends on the occasion.
So, which is it, Darwinists? Am I to be in awe of your intellect, credentials and achievements? Or should I more sensibly regard your speculations, reasonings, and conclusions as no more noteworthy or credible than those of anyone else with an IQ above room temperature?