It would be better if you were not so inclined to respond with hyperbolic invective. The case for intelligent design is reasonable. So is the case for evolution. So is the case for various combinations of the above. Insofar as all of them attempt to present the bigger picture of what objective reality is about, none of them qualify as empirical science, but as shaping principles, which are also a necessary part of science.
I commend you from softening your stance. I don't know many YEC's (from your profile) that say the case for evolution is reasonable.
Perhaps in a year's time, you'll be the guy we point to saying, "See, the endless fight has been worthwhile."
But it is not science. And that's the point. It isn't science. Religion isn't science. Neither is philosophy or art or drama or commerce or politics or damn near a gazillion other things in the world. Because science is a defined pursuit, one that simply does not include investigation into the paranormal or supernatural.
And because, after many hours (both today and on previous days) you still seem unwilling to recognize that science is limited, by definition, to the natural world, and is not some grand quest for knowledge of everything that objectively "is", be they supernatural or not, I am exhausted. I cannot try to convince you any more. I don't have the patience for it. Thus, my hyperbole. We will have to simply disagree.
If you read it as invective, then I apologize for that. I meant it to sting, but not to draw blood.