Well I appreciate that you explain that. But you know that at BioLogos some of us call ourselves "theistic evolutionists," so that is hard to appreciate right away. It sounds like you meant something else.
Going to my prior point, the rhetoric "sounds" anti-evolution. Even if you don't mean us when you say "EvoTARD" it is not obvious you are not referring to us. It is not obvious you are not referring to my scientific colleagues that accept evolution but question the "blind watchmaker."
Dawkins is not a good place to learn about evolution.. His version of evolution is not scientific, but also includes strong metaphysical claims that are not scientific.
If that is your starting point, it will be very difficult to untangle your point of view. Good luck with that. The actual scientific theory is that we all descent from common ancestors.
I suppose, after decades of reading about this topic, and working as a scientist too, I have yet to come across all these experiments that support ID. Where are these secret experiments being conducted? Where are they published? Why is that all the biologists I work with are unaware of them?
Of course we can. Read this ID critique of Axe. In particular the links to Sandwalk explain exactly how this is a strawman.
Well, what do you expect when you are working from an undergrad education on a complicated field? That doesn't give you even the basics.
It turns out there are predictions born out of things like natural selection and neutral drift. And it this is exactly what convinced people that these mechanisms of change (in particular drift) are so important. One high level primer (by an ID orbiting author) is here:
One of the most impressive predictions is that intron substitution rates should approximately equal synonymous mutation rates, if (1) most mutations are neutral and (2) we descend from common ancestors. There is no ID theory that makes this prediction, and it is extremely robust across the genome, and between a wide range of species. If not common descent, then what causes this pattern?
This just one example of course. There is much more here.
So apparently, Darwin had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn't till Huxley in 1942 that evolution was introduced. Someone should have told Williams Jennings Bryan. What in the world were they arguing about at the Scope Trial? Evolution didn't even exist yet! (irony alert again).
I could go on here. You use the term "theory" different than we do in science. But rather that pursue that, I have a better question...
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? Why are you so passionate about this issue? Why does it matter to you?
I've already agreed with you that ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution, and explain that to people here all the time. Setting that aside, what are you hoping to accomplish here?