There are literally millions of Americans who don't know a whole lot about evolution or biology. They've heard a great deal of noise, but haven't really thought about it.
On the other hand, they know that biological systems, especially baby humans, seem extremely complex to them. They seem at least as complicated as watches, for example, and so it seems to them that there ought to be a watchmaker somewhere. They aren't so sure about the Bible being literally true. They've heard, for example, that dinosaurs were millions of years old, and the scientists saying those things seemed to know what they were talking about. So, they just aren't sure about all that science stuff.
Nevertheless, they're pretty darned certain that this great big wonderful world is so amazingly wonderful, complex, and beyond our comprehension that God just had to be involved somehow. Meanwhile, they've heard that " a lot of scientists" agree, and they call their theory "Intelligent Design".
Then, along comes someone saying that isn't really ID. ID is really a plot by biblical fundamentalists to sneak creationism past the judges who outlawed creationism in the classroom.
Well, there are a lot of problems with that line of argument. First, the people know what they believe, and assuming they've heard of creationism, they know that isn't what they believe. Second, they aren't part of some sort of conspiracy, and they know that. Third, they probably aren't so keen on judges (they probably say "liberal judges" or "activist judges") deciding what goes on in the classroom in the first place. Fourth, the assertion that the opponents of ID know something about ID that is unkown to the supporters of ID makes opponents look awfully arrogant.
In short, you've shot yourself in the foot before you even really start talking about the arguments themselves. It would be far better if you simply argued against ID itself, instead of against your own distorted view of it.
