The political agendas behind these movements are not obvious to many, and some of the points you made about them are reflective of that.
There is nothing political about getting an education. It's just a matter of wrestling with the tendency to be lazy. With the most basic exposure to learning, the underlying premise of this thread evaporates.
I would not say that their campaign does not have any appeal to the intelligent or scientific community, because nature does reveal ID.
ID is a fraud designed by narcissistic idiots and perpetrated on weak minds, naive under-educated folks, morons and nuts. Other than that, it's completely irrelevant, and it has zero appeal to anyone with half their wits about them, much less people with actual training in science.
However, their ultimate goal, probably not realised, is to allow the churches to regain their lost and much coveted power again.
There's a kind of self-aggrandizing envy in this that seems to want to justify individual absurdity rather than the collective version.
Animal farm, where the take over is worse than the previous rule.
A pig on his own will still run to the slop.
I don't support evolution in education,
That's simply because you lack the education to make an informed decision about it, and because you've substituted what you lack with your own fantasies of what knowledge encompasses. Remember, it's never too late to learn. The facts you lack are only a mouse-click away.
and neither do I support ID with an agenda.
All ID comes with an agenda. First and foremost is the agenda to wallow in ignorance and to rail against knowledge and education.
Both persuations have political sources,
Science has nothing in common with politics. It involves the study of natural laws, and doesn't concern itself with any of what you're talking about. You would know this if you'd ever studied science.
and will probably result in a revolution in favour of the latter.
Ignorance will never be completely wiped out. It will hang on, kicking and screaming, and railing against knowledge. But that's its nature. If you call that revolution, that's your prerogative. But nothing will ever go in the favor of ignorance.
The false consepts of how God creates, snapping fingers as you would call it, does not agree with processes observed in nature and capitalised on by evolution.
All concepts of how God creates are false. Evolutionary biology isn't capital. It's knowledge. Lacking that knowledge, you may feel inclined to recast it as something it's not. That's also your prerogative. As for observing the processes of Nature, this is evidently not one of your strengths. This is why you should be willing to leave the observations in the hands of the experts, or else belly up to the bar and do some science work yourself. I think it's fundamentally absurd to criticize something you neither understand nor study, and to criticize it to the point of casting aspersions on the people who do bother to do the difficult work. If you can entrust your car to a mechanic or your food to a food preparer, by what logic would you dismiss the expertise of all the world's scientists? The consequences of driving with a leaky brake line or eating contaminated food are far greater than those of simply reading a science text book. Besides, like I said, you are free to do all the cross-checking you want. The problem is, it's equivalent to banging your head into a wall. You're simply not going to outsmart the world with naive and absurd assertions about Nature.
However, evolution has gone too far by dismissing ID altogether,
The reverse is true. ID simply dismisses science. And ID dismisses history. ID dismisses the cumulative knowledge of the world. Worst of all, ID dismisses Nature. It does so by lying, by simply re-creating Nature in its own image. ID dresses up stupidity and parades it as if it were insight. This is why under-educated folks fall for it. They simply don't know better. The key to curing this defect is education. This is why ID is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on knowledge and learning. Education inherently poses a threat to stupidity. But ID is a losing proposition. Humans are intelligent, and, though it may take a very long time, we will eventually climb the learning curve as a species. ID will fade into the past with all the other long-gone disavowals of reality.
and resorted to lengths of time to do the job,
Nature doesn't "resort" to anything. And there is no job. These are all imagined, based on a lack of information about how nature works.
The amount of time for a species to evolve is not magical. It takes a moment, or it takes eons. You simply don't understand how evolution is occurring. Even as you speak, the microbes attacking your body are evolving, and your own immune system is evolving defenses against them. Write down the dates between two different bouts with a cold or flu, and you can measure the evolution of the processes within yourself. It happens as fast as it happens. Time between morphing a group of creatures depends entirely on initial population size, rate of reproduction, rate of drift or mutation, and rate of die-off on account of natural selection. Darwin spoke of the knowledge of animal breeders in England, and described some very elaborate ways breeders select their breeding pairs. These were people who needed immediate results. So that's about as fast as sheep or dogs can evolve. E. coli bacteria reproduce 13,000 times faster than dogs. This is why it's rather simple to prove the main premise of Darwin's theory with a microbial culture. All you need is the power of deduction to see that what a lab tech can do very quickly, causing bacteria to evolve by introducing an anti-microbial agent, is no different that the way animal breeders and farmers have changed the genetics of plants and animals very drastically, usually very slowly, even over hundreds or thousands of years. Compare maize to corn, for example, and try to figure out how long it took, simply by the fact that some people figured out that the better ears would yield better offspring. All Darwin did was to remove artificial selection from this picture and to introduce the fact that natural selection is at work all the time. Here, the rates of change can be extremely slow, since the evolutionary pressures are not always as drastic as the hand-picking that goes in artificial selection.
Before you can legitimately characterize a theory you would at least have to be able to state the theory. Your inability to do so renders this moot. Contrary to your denial of reality, evolutionary biology is one of he most prevailing threads that links all the sciences together. Again, you would already know this if you'd ever bothered to read science.
The more time allowed, the less probability of getting it right, let alone of surviving.
In complete counterpoint to your belief of how evolution happens is the actual way that it happens. Since creatures evolve purely as a result of surviving long enough to reproduce, then the probability that their descendants will also survive that long increases statistically as well. You would need some training in statistics to comprehend this, but it would also be evident to you if you ever had any experience raising plants or animals. Traits are inherited, but they are also conferred in a randomly scrambled manner. Every population has evolved, and will continue to evolve whenever the odds of surviving with the present traits becomes so severe that the individuals no longer live long enough to reproduce. When this happens to a substantial percentage of the population, then the survivors become the new gene pool, and the traits they possess will automatically dominate, and a new longer-living version of the creature will tend to emerge. In many cases there are phenotype changes, which are the only thing you're addressing - the noticeable physical changes which set creatures apart by appearance or function, whereas they may be closely related genetically. Rats and humans are genetically much more similar than the form and function comparisons can detect. This is why rats are used extensively in testing for organic causes of human disease. They are that similar to us genetically.
The world of science is out there just waiting for you to dip a toe in and actually learn something.
