It's not a question of a mere lack of evidence, the point is that ID can't have any evidence because it permits no deductions. Do you understand what evidence means scientifically?
Do you understand what it means to condescend to reality? To get from evidence to naturalism, you have to first doubt what you know, then you have to find a principle to know, then you take what you know to prove the non-existence of what you doubted. If that is the philosophical basis of your scientific evidence, you will no doubt have science and nothing but. But a the same time you've shrunk all the world to science. Now, back to subject and object. If you don't want to discuss first principles, you're a sham and a propagandist.
Write this in your notebook: ID is an inference about the evidence.