ID debate final remarks

Why is it that any argument over ID inevitably turns into an argument over the credibility of sources and not at all a discussion of the particular issues being raised by those sources. (there's a lot of name dropping and not much scientific mumbo-jumbo).

I suppose the entire discussion would end much, much sooner if those issues were debated by scientific means with empirical proofs and testable data supports and hence it would be rather boring and one-sided. I haven't seen an issue raised by ID supporters that actually disproves evolutionary theory or any functional mechanism described by it. It's certainly a diverting metaphysical discussion for people who wish to ascertain the nature of the universe without the benefit of factual resources (which is useful if one is in the habit of doing thought experiments). But that's about the extent of its utility as an academic discussion.