Tim Daneliuk wrote:

....
"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.

Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.

...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.

AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.