The reason ideas like Intelligent Design don't get any traction is because the people who promote those ideas never provide any details. If you make an assertio

The reason ideas like Intelligent Design don't get any traction is because the people who promote those ideas never provide any details. If you make an assertion that a process can't work without divine intervention, the burden of proof is on you to explain at what specific point the intervention occurred, and what kind of event that was, and what did it do exactly. You would think that people who believe in the wonder and miracle of God's creation would be overflowing with ideas like that, but for some reason they always dry up when challenged. It's like when you watch a show like Ghost Hunters. I mean I'd be the first one to express delight if they ever come up with something that was genuinely novel and interesting after all the years they've been on TV. But even if they did, it wouldn't prove the existence of the afterlife, it would be something else. And it would need to be investigated by people who aren't invested in any particular outcome. So it ends up being a paradox. If you want to prove the truth of a religious assertion, you have to approach it from a neutral place and look for all the possible falsifications. And since religious people never want to do that, we find ourselves back at the place we started, saying that religion is a manifestation of human culture, which is different from a thing that defines a method for explaining novel phenomena.