An Observation on ID and Common Descent

Now I've admitted in the past that I am a uninformed outsider when it comes to discussions between the ID (Intelligent Design) supporters and those who follow "Darwin" and common descent. Jim (of Decorabilia) points to a a paper 29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution by Douglass Theobald which at the outset seem to indicate to me that two groups are talking past each other.

Mr Theobald points out that

However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

ID so far as I understand admits the existence of common descent and MacroEvolution. It just doubts that the random genetic drift, i.e., microevolution can produce the effects seen. If as Mr Theobald claims is correct, that Common Descent is a theory that leaves out how macroevolution occurs then there is not real common place for argument. ID casts doubt on how macroevolution occurs not that it does occur.

To make an analogy from Physics, ID might be seen more as criticism of a particular quantum theory of gravity whereas Common Descent is Newton's description of gravitation effects on falling bodies. To say the two "theories" are at odds would be a little strange.

Those who wish to criticize ID need to produce their own testable theories of how MacroEvolution occurs. Defenses of Common Descent and Darwin miss the point.