Actually, the same evidence that supports Darwinism supports Intelligent Design.
Consider, for instance, if an alien society came to a dead Earth and began uncovering autombiles buried in a junkyard. The aliens would notice that the cars were progressively more advanced over time, but that year on year the cars had only minor changes from their earlier variants.
The aliens could then use that physical evidence of the cars buried in layers over more than a century to conclude either that the cars themselves evolved, or that the intelligent designers of the cars evolved.
The physical evidence, after all, would support both theories. Ditto for digging up fossils of animals and plants.
Of course, where Darwinism breaks down is not in the physical evidence or even in the Natural Selection process, but in the probability *math* required for the unaided sequencing of billions of genetic DNA instructions into their precise order (see: A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution).
In contrast, Intelligent Design holds up remarkably well to that same math. For instance, Intelligent Design precisely and accurately explains why computer programs are sequenced into their precise electronic coding order.
Probability math is still taught in our dilapadated public schools, one presumes, so applying that math to areas of known contention, where said math will show a precise scientific answer, seems like the obvious path.
Sadly, activist judges in Georgia and wild-eyed liberals in Massachusetts don't want such scholarly study to take place. Any attempt to investigate Darwinism with *math* is ruled out of bounds. Evolutionary *theory* must be accepted as fact, per those radicals, and no scientific challenges to said theory are to be permitted.
In this case, even the application of mere sticky notes that said "Evolution is a Theory" are banned by such activists.
Oh my goodness, not those "religiously dogmatic" sticky notes! How will "science" ever survive?! < /mocking! >