I have no tricks up my sleeve. My explanation will be 'common sense'.
Someone has sent me a copy of a New York Times editorial from the third of this month, prompted by some hoots of the White House chimpanzee, and opposing Stupid Design. Very good. But get a load of this: 'Faith is a deeply personal matter that defies scientific examination, and it is properly taught at home and at places of worship.'
Let's ignore the latter half of that sentence; I include it only for context. Here I'm interested only in the first half: 'Faith is a deeply personal matter that defies scientific examination' [italics mine]. Surely that is not true, and indeed there is no reason to suspect that religious faith will not one day be well understood by scientists. Indeed, probably we will at the same time develop effective medical treatments. So what's going on here is that the Times editorialists are trying to protect religion from science. Indeed, what they are calling for is that children be taught that the workings of the human 'mind' are at least in part outside the scope of science.
We can never overcome the Stupid Designers when we also oppose scientific orientation. We must remove from religion all of its protections against science. We must change, not in degree but in kind, our attitudes towards religion and science.
I am not calling for an end to religion, but an end to the protections. But a lot of people understand that this would mean an end to religion as we know it. That scares people, and so they throw up these defenses, just like a patient in psychotherapy.