Uh huh. Equally, the evidence is just as strong for wood sprites and Reynard the Fox and Rigelian lizard people, however, science is prejudiced toward selecting answers to questions that involve the least necessary leaps into assumptions about what we don't yet know.
It amuses me in a queer way to hear an intelligently designed being tell me there is no such thing as intelligent design involved is his existence.
I suppose then, that all post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments amuse you.
Galileo would be rolling his eyes. The proponents of ID are the modern day Galileos, and this time folks like you are on the side of ignorance.
Much bravado, little sense or evidence. At least you're consistent.
Have you seen them? I haven't. Have you even heard serious reports of their existence? I haven't.
But I've seen intelligent design, and everytime I've seen it, I've reasonably assumed a designer is behind it. There IS evidence for intelligent design, far more than there is for natural selection and random muatations as agents in performing meaningful functions, let alone communicating information.