DaveScot summed it up in a previous UD comment perhaps better than I have ever heard it expressed:
…the ballyhooed 150 years of acceptance of Darwinian evolution is irrelevant — it was based on vastly incomplete knowledge of the nanometer-scale machinery and information that drives all of life. Even today we have barely scratched the surface of this nanotechnology marvel that is the DNA-based living cell. All previous bets are off. The modern synthesis can best be described as obsolete — a patchwork quilt of ad hoc hypotheses propping up a failed theory worse than the epicycles used to keep alive the theory that the earth was the center of the universe.
All previous bets are indeed off.
So why is devotion to random mutation and natural selection (clearly inviable as an explanation for anything substantive when it comes to biological complexity, information content and innovation), and Darwinian incrementalism (clearly in conflict with the overall testimony of the fossil record), defended with such passion?
I believe that the answer to this question is twofold. When one has invested his entire life — professional career, source of income, prestige among peers, and sense of self-worth and accomplishment — in a dying philosophy, it will be defended simply because to do otherwise would be to admit that one has wasted his life. This is a powerful incentive to lie even to oneself. In addition, when one’s entire worldview (where we came from, why we are here, and the ultimate meaning of life), is threatened, there is an even more powerful incentive to lie to oneself.
The old guard won’t change, no matter the evidence. They will die in denial of the obvious. But a new group of young people with open minds will replace them, and future generations will accept design as being so obvious that they will shake their heads in disbelief that it took so long for the pseudoscience of Darwinism to take its place on the ash heap of history.