1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.
2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.
3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.
However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.
Why do you state that ID is not a science, period, end of controversy? Intelligent design posits the theory that the universe as we see it looks more like the product of intelligence than of blind chance. Why is that not a question suitable for scientific inquiry? Or do we simply rule the possibility out without inquiring into it?
Archaeologists ask that question all the time. Is this object I dug up an artifact, or is it a random product of geological processes?
It hardly seems sufficient simply to state that ID is not a science, so get out of here and stop bothering us. Because it is a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis.