What I am asking you to do is to consider all sides when weighing your final evidence. Don't base your entire belief system on raw data. Use your intuition.
The entire point of the scientific method is to remove the bias of human intuition. There are tons and tons of discoveries science has made which run counter to human intution, such as quantum mechanics and heliocentrism.
All of the evidence is not yet in.
If you can't present the evidence that led you to a conclusion, then you are admitting that your conclusions is baseless.
And consider this: I could think of the best scientific explanation for how Jesus walked on water, but I wouldn't believe that explanation because I have a better explanation that is non-scientific.
This is a difficult concept for an atheist to grasp, since to an atheist, science= truth.
Atheists don't have a problem understanding why people will believe in claims that have no evidence to back them, and why they would reject solid conclusions based on evidence. It appears to be a common human flaw.
Except when it comes to the Darwinian explanation for the history of life, which can't be questioned.
There are several problems with this statement.
First, ID/creationists aren't questioning the actual theory. Instead, they erect a strawman version of the theory and attack it. One great example of this is your false comparison of breeding programs conducted by humans and how evolution actually works. Another example is ID/creationists expecting one modern species to evolve into another modern species. This shouldn't happen if evolution is true.
Second, ID/creationists don't listen to the answers. I have presented the evidence to creationists over and over, but they seem to ignore it.