You are absolutely right that we are both arguing against “natural selection = blind watchmaker” and blind materialistic forces, bottom-up view of the universe, reductionism and scientism. We agree about a great number of things.
Universal common descent is still in question by the majority of the ID community but not outright refuted (although things appear to be leaning more in that direction). However, the “Blind Watchmaker” thesis (the idea that all organisms have not only descended from a universal common ancestor, but that that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms) has garnered enough scientific evidence to reject its theoretical conclusion.
He does not sugarcoat or hide from the potential implications that his theory could point towards, nor does he hide from the philosophical implications surrounding the “blind-watchmaker” thesis. And I would say that their #1 goal is to refute that thesis until Design is a more commonly accepted alternative to publicly acknowledge and review.
Watch the arguments in the comments on my blog and see how the atheists are constantly back pedaling, realizing that their Blind Watchmaker pop religion doesn’t work. Yes it makes them angry and it makes them doubt.
McLachlan states "Living systems are wonderfully well-suited to their purpose, but the design is shaped by blind evolution instead of imaginative intelligence." The notion that God does not exercise "imaginative intelligence" is clearly offensive to anyone who believes in a higher power. Richard Dawkins, author of , is the very ideal of a modern materialist reductionist. It has been noted above that the word "reductionism" serves the purpose today that "scientism" played in the 1940s. Let me attempt to give just a flavor of Dawkins' worldview.
It is the extrapolation from these clearly observable adaptations and changes to the grand "blind watchmaker thesis" (blind, random, directionless, purposeless processes created living diversity) that is the subject of contention and differences about this have appeared even amongst evolutionists themselves as has preceded, as many of them challenge the explanatory power of this thesis.
Macro evolution is not only possible, it’s directly observable. New species, dramatic changes in short periods of time, and it completely contradicts the blind watchmaker version of evolution which is really just a pop religion.