Your thought might be more convincing if you provided an example of an anomaly and how an evolutionary theorist could productively apply IDism to it. If the people who think there is something to IDism can't develop a productive ID research program, how likely is it that a skeptic would be able to?

If I should make one small quibble, I would point out that my thoughts about intelligent design are best contrasted with origin-of-life research, not evolutionary biology.

Yes, I understand. I was really only continuing on with what Fitelson had used in his paper. I wasn't meaning to imply that ID and evolutionary biology are at odds with each other (although particular interpretations of each surely are).

A very good post. If I should make one small quibble, I would point out that my thoughts about intelligent design are best contrasted with origin-of-life research, not evolutionary biology.

Our search for "The Truth" is endless, and we can only share our current version of "The Truth" as we understand it today. We often forget that our reasoning is limited by our still limited knowledge, experience and insight of today. People who do not share the same knowledge, experience or insight will not be able to understand each other, because they do not share a common interpretation of the world.

One can not convince someone else by reason alone. Only though a clear demonstration will the other learn new knowledge, gain experience and develop insight. After that, no reason has to be given anymore because the other already shares you interpretation of the world.