You:
The quality of "best" ought to be determined on ideologically and theologically neutral ground. IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.
Okay, but how in the world is ID going to be judged "best" in the absence of any theological bias? Frankly, based on the lack of research and some unguarded admissions (you've seen the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project") most of the evos here strongly suspect that ID is nothing but closeted theology. Despite that, I've been seriously trying to frame it as a scientific hypothesis. However, if the wording of the hypothesis flat-out declares that even if there's a natural and unguided explanation, ID (although unsupported by evidence) is nevertheless a serious contender, and perhaps the "best," -- a clear ideological preference -- then I'll just drop back into lurking mode.
Nevertheless, it ought to be very straight forward to judge evidence without bias. Juries and judges do it every day - as has a previously very biased general public in recovering from centuries of racial bias.
Sure, none of these have been perfect - but a good faith effort over all these years has served us very well indeed.
In sum, it requires awareness, honesty and personal discipline to recognize when one is harboring a personal prejudice and then overcome it.
It strikes me thare is an attempt here to change the scope of the debate and shift the emphasis towards abiogenesis. There's an enormous difference between debating whether natural selection is adequate to explain the process of evolution, and debating whether a yet to be specified hypothesis is adequate to describe first life.