What is the 'original sin'? Answer: The quest for knowledge.
Understanding this is paramount to understanding why having the god debate with anyone of faith is ultimately futile. (And, so I will beat this dead horse once again to make the point.)The quest for knowledge is undeniably what science (and atheism) is all about and it is thereby in direct support of the 'original sin', which is why fundamentalists adamantly oppose it, since it is faith in god, rather than knowledge of god, that is required of believers to believe in something for which there can never be any scientific proof.
Correct, debating against faith is futile because the total lack of evidence supporting the belief leaves you with nothing solid to debate against.
But, it is also futile to debate Intelligent Design with anyone who demands physical evidence for an Intelligent Designer. It is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to ever be any.
This is because of the following:
Premise 1: Empiricism can only explore and conclude upon what's observed (axiomatic).
Premise 2: An intelligent designer cannot possibly be observed (axiomatic).
Therefore:
Empiricism cannot explore and conclude upon an Intelligent Designer (logical deduction from true premises)
Further explanation and support of premises:
1) Premise #1 is axiomatically true because the definition of Empiricism is "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."
2) Premise #2 is axiomatically true because a total lack of constraint (i.e. infinite) is the defining characteristic of an intelligent designer.
By "defining characteristic," I mean that being infinite and totally lacking constraint is the only criteria by which it can be distinguished from all other real phenomena that is necessarily constrained.
3) The conclusion follows from the premises because, since Empiricism can only explore that which is constrained so as to be distinguishable to the senses, and because an Intelligent Designer necessarily and totally lacks any constraint, it follows that Empiricism cannot explore Intelligent Design (and thus obviously can't soundly comment upon it one way or another).
So, even if you assume an Intelligent Designer exists right off the bat, it is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be any physical evidence for one.
It is simply a bad, invalid argument to conclude it is silly to believe in an Intelligent Designer due to a lack of physical evidence.