In rhetoric class, not science class.
In science class, all that's needed is the fact that *any* possible observation is consistent with ID, therefore it is not a scientific theory. (It is unable to make predictions). This is in contrast to evolution, which makes specific, testable predictions.
The students will also learn that ID/creationists do *no* research - all they do is attack standard biology.
In rhetoric class, the students can use ID/creationism as a case study in dishonesty - arguments from made-up "quotations", misleading, out-of-context "quotations", the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of using inappropriate authority, and so forth.
Nice point and score.