As summed up by another commenter:
A Darwinist (D) having a conversation with an ID proponent (ID)
D: Naturalistic forces are sufficient for producing biodiversity.
ID: Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?
D: It’s all over the place.
ID: Could you point me to one of those places?
D: Well, sure if you insist. Here is the evidence for Macro Evolution.
ID: Please try to focus. We are not talking about Macro Evolution. The issue is whether or not naturalistic forces are “sufficient” to produce it.
D: Please tell me why you think an intelligent agent was responsible.
ID: Again, I must ask you to stay on topic. We are discussing your claim, not mine.
D: I believe that my neo-Darwinistic theory is adequate. Eventually, matter in motion will produce life and leave the appearance of design, even though that design is not real.
ID: I understand that you believe in the neo-Darwinism paradigm, but I am asking you if you have any good reasons for believing in it.
D: ID is not a rigorous science.
ID: ID is rigorous enough that its proponents can produce empirical evidence that lends itself to scientific measurement. Do you have any empirical, measurable evidence to support your position?
D: Please define “information.”
ID: I will be happy to do that at another time, but I am, at the moment, interested in finding out if you can make a rational case for your argument.
D: I think evolutionary processes resemble intentional intelligent processes very closely.
ID. That is an interesting claim, but I am still hoping that you will defend your original claim, which you seem to have forgotten.
D: Well, if you must know, I find the Darwinistic explanation more parsimonious?
ID: But do you have any reason to believe that this parsimonious explanation reflects reality or is consistent with the evidence?
D: Yes, thousands of scientists believe it.
ID: But that is precisely what all the fuss in about. Those scientists, like you, cannot support their beliefs, which is why we are having this discussion.
D: Well, I’ve been busy, and I’ve slightly lost track of the challenge. But yes, I do think that unintelligent processes can generate intelligent ones. I don’t see any good a priori reason to think they couldn’t.
ID: But do you have any evidentially-based reasons for believing that?
D: I have already presented the evidence?
ID: Again, you have presented summaries of arguments on behalf of Common Descent? You have not, in any way, presented an argument to support the proposition that naturalistic forces can take life through all the taxonomic levels or produce even one new body plan.
D: Please define “naturalistic forces.”
ID: They are what you thought they were when you said they were “sufficient.”
Darwinists are fun. You have to love it!