Actually . . . if their rebuttal is the arguments advanced by design advocates boil down to an 'argument from ignorance,' as well as an 'argument from personal incredulity.'", they are.
Since the larger point of ID is that evolution is impossible,
No, the point of ID is that evolution falls short at explaining biodiversity. You can be an IDer and an evolutionist -- like Behe.
That’s the same as claiming evolution as an explanation of life is impossible. Saying evolution “falls short” is not evidence of design. That’s just claiming weaknesses.
For evolutionary criticism to be evidence of ID, it would have to identify something impossible in evolution. Nothing attempted so far stands up to review as far as I can tell.