I have to agree with Tim that you've certainly said a bunch of interesting stuff. There are some few parts of it with which I think I may agree, but most of it I'm pretty sure I don't. I think you are mixing a number of issues and points that are actually quite separate, distinct, and even incompatible, plus I think you are making a number of assumptions, especially regarding science and how it works, that are not necessarily correct. I think it would take me several lifetimes to untangle it all, so I'll confine my remarks to my major complaints:
1. Although I certainly appreciate your very noble goal of preventing the outright slaughter of all non-Christian biology teachers in the unavoidable, future bloodbath, to which you allude, when the Evangelicals finally turn the full force of their wrath on all atheists and other low-lifes, that really has no bearing on the intellectual issues at hand and does not raise ID to the level of an acceptable scientific theory worthy of serious discussion in the scientific community. Fortunately, past generations did not take this approach when confronting the questions of the structure of the solar system, the laws governing motion, or any other scientific questions. A theory either survived testing, or it did not. Modern science is not an amalgam of competing ideas, each with its honored place so as not to offend the sensitivities of any of its believers. Science is not about belief; it is about facts and what we can explain with them. Peaceful coexistence, although a noble and desirable goal of society, politics, government, and even religion, is not the way science works. I also disagree that the purpose of entering a debate is to change its nature. To contribute neglected facts, to illuminate overlooked sequences of reasoning, to clarify the issues, to change the outcome...yes. But to change the very subject being debated...that would be starting a new debate...or a new thread. Either way, intellectual detente is not an acceptable reason for accepting any notion as scientifically acceptable. "Just the facts, Mam, just the facts."
2. I readily admit that I am largely ignorant of the field of General Philosophy, but I think I understand that the rules of reasoning, argument, and perhaps even "evidence" in GP are very relaxed from those in Science. This is well precedented as the rules of evidence in the courtroom are quite relaxed in several respects from the rules in the laboratory, yet people live and die by those laxer, courtroom rules. So, if it is acceptable in GP to count any notion that impinges itself upon our conscienceness as some kind of evidence for that notion, then so be it, but this is absolutely not acceptable in Science. Much of what you indicate and even seem to accept as "broad evidence" or "evidentiary support" are what would be call "hypotheses" in Science. The mere thinking of an idea in Science is not any kind of evidence for it in any sense of the word of which I'm aware. If the places in your discourse that you offered these hypotheses as evidence were dealing with purely philosophical matters (e.g. ethics, morals, whatever), then perhaps GP would allow them into evidence, but the topic in which you offered them was not philosophical but a question of how life began on the Earth...a clearly scientific question that must clearly be approached scientifically...unless we don't care about the correctness and provability of the answer. So I reject virtually all of your "evidence" whether narrow or broad as not being any kind of evidence at all.
3. I, too, have to insist that what you call IDv3, and what the rest of us call biotechnology, is not any part of any discussion among anyone I've read regarding the scientific community's fight against the injection of religion into the science classroom. And I certainly have not heard any proponent of ID (except you) ever suggest that IDv3 is what they want to teach in schools. If only that were the case, there would be no debate. The science classroom is exactly where IDv3 should be taught (bypassing for this discussion the very important safety and ethical issues surrounding it). Here I feel that your insistence on the appropriateness of IDv3 as classroom subject matter being sufficient to justify accepting ID as a serious scientific subject is very much confusing the issue. I think it's called "equivocation"? I really don't think any serious evolutionist would object to IDv3 as science or that any creationist would accept it as what they mean.
4. As an atheist, I don't embrace superstitions regardless of how noble some of their practitioners claim some of their tenets may be, but as a freethinker I also respect each individual's right to believe whatever ridiculous horse hockey they may fancy, as long as they don't try to force it down anyone else's (especially, my) throat. So, I am willing to try to find a way for all sides to peacefully coexist. I think there is a very simple resolution, but the religious fanatics refuse to cooperate. The solution (told to me by a friend who was a devout Southern Baptist, a biology major, and a thoroughly entrenched evolutionist): "Biological evolution is the physical mechanism that God used to bring about the diversity of life we see in the World today." By that he meant, of course, that God works as He pleases, but it pleases Him to go "au natural". God did not set up the Cosmos just to go sticking His finger in every little detail for all Eternity to come. He set up a Cosmos that could take care of itself. (Of course, they still claimed He intervened when people like Moses made a wrong turn and got caught with his pants down, but you gotta have that sort of thing in religions, don't you.) This was what I was taught by my parents, teachers, and, yes, even ministers (Methodist and Southern Baptist) when I was a tyke. Except for a very few people, usually of little education, no one I ever knew ever insisted that evolution and the Bible were in conflict on this. It was simply assumed that Genesis told you "what" God did, and sometimes "why", but only Science told us "how". How many times in my science education did my teachers say, "Science cannot answer the question 'Why?'. It can only answer 'How'". Now, if the right-wing fanatics could only see reason, we would not be having this discussion.
And, just a couple of minor points:
1. The anomaly in Mercury's orbit did not "bring down Newton". This is an oft-quoted and incorrect notion. All of Newton's Generalizations of Motion and Theory of Gravity are still perfectly in tact (enough so that any physics student will tell you of the hours they've spent having to master the subject); they are just extended by Einstein's Relativity. Einstein is more general, Newton still works perfectly in the special case of slow speeds and weak gravitational fields (a favorite homework problem in General Relativity books is to prove this). Einstein subsumes Newton. (after Hugo's remarks:
2. Also, we could probably argue over the definition of the word "direct evidence" forever, but most scientists would consider that there is a mountain of direct evidence for atoms. (I'll leave defense of the evidence for speciation to Timothy.) As a physics major, I have seen plenty of such direct evidence in the form of needles being deflected on a volt meter, spectral lines on a photographic plate whose separation distances I've had to measure, streaks of particles in a Wilson cloud chamber, and much more. No, I haven't actually seen an individual atom with my own eyes, but I have seen secondary phenomena completely in keeping with that explanation and no other. Now one may say that's not "direct" evidence, but then neither is anything else. No one has ever actually seen a rock either. We only see the light reflected from the rock some picoseconds or so ago. We only feel the rock because of electrical impulses in our skin and brain. But, if we agree to be a little more reasonable in our definition, I think that the glowing, green, concentric circles on the phosphorescent screen in the electron diffraction experiment I had to conduct in my undergraduate physics lab and the clearly visible streaks, some appearing as I stared, in the Wilson cloud chamber my 9th grade science teacher assembled while the entire class watched, would count as pretty direct evidence of something going on that needs explanation. It may not prove all aspects of the Atomic or Quantum Theories, but all observations were certainly in keeping with what we were taught they would be...and, we either watched the assembly and operation, or had to setup the equipment ourselves. There was no conspiracy and no shenanigans. There was just direct observations. And, if you're willing to shell out a little money, you can actually duplicate many of these experiments yourself. In fact, some big city science centers probably have hands-on demonstrations you can view. Or, enroll in your local university's physics program. Many have "personal enrichment" programs where no degree is conferred. You just go and learn. Science is not confined to "eyewitness testimony" or "personal experience". Science is very democratic--everyone can see it and repeat it for themselves...if you're sufficiently motivated.
And, in closing let me say, despite my rather negative response to your discourse, be assured that I am merely sharing my view of your views and mean nothing negative to you personally. I just think you're wrong. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and will continue to consider your points. After all, if we all agreed, then why are we here?
Love & kisses,