Thanks, everyone, for the contributions, so far! The following is a draft of the questions I chose, so far. I will present them to most target places in parts (not the whole thing at once). (Though, a few places might get the whole thing, at once. It depends on how I judge the "needs" of the audience.)
Any feedback would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: The Practical Issues
1A. How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?
1B. How can I.D. be used as a framework for solving problems in any scientific field?
1C. If I.D. were to completely replace Evolution as the standard theory taught in U.S. schools, how would that give our students a competitive advantage in understanding the science of biology, on the world's stage?
Part 2: The Designer
2A. Where is the evidence that a Designer exists? And, why do so many Creationists act like this question is not even important, when they claim they are doing science?
2B. How are we to assess the engineering skills of the Designer? Can we determine what constraints existed for the Designer, in terms of materials, labor, and so forth? (This would seem important, if we are going to replace Evolution for use in medical research, for example.)
2C. Why are certain common characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?
2D. How can we deduce the motives of the Intelligent Designer?
2E. Does I.D. claim that there is supposed to be a specific purpose for life on Earth? If so, how do you know what it is? (Or what they are? There could be more than one purpose.)
2F. Some people are under the impression that life looks as though it was either 'designed by committee' or perhaps 'competing contractors'. But, some insist that there was only one Designer. Can you develop a test to determine which is more accurate?
2G. If I were to claim that the "deducing of an Intelligent Designer" was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?
Part 3: The Science
3A. Scientists are often motivated by the thrill of discovering new things. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?
3B. Could you define your technical terms, (and other words or expressions), that are likely to be misunderstood? For example: What is I.D.'s working definition of "Intelligence" or "Design"? In what ways do they differ from forces that are not intelligent and things that are not designed? (In other words, we are aiming for empirical definitions.)
3C. Why do so many I.D. proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as: junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort has been made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?
3D. What observations were originally predicted by your theory?
3E. Can you design an experiment that could invalidate (or "falsify") Intelligent Design, depending on the results?
3F. Why has Evolution, even in its provisional form, been powerful enough to change what I.D. proponents think, over time. But, I.D. has not been powerful enough to change what Evolution proponents think, so far?
3G. How come it always seems to be the evolutionary biologists who are publishing new, innovative results and findings, and not I.D. researchers? (If it is "luck", then why do they get all the "luck"?)
3H. If I were to claim that Intelligent Design studies do nothing but "affirm their conclusions", how could you demonstrate otherwise?
Part 4: The Competition
4A. Can your theory explain why the present distribution of plant and animals in the world came about, the way it is? Why are tomatoes and potatoes only native to the Americas, for example? Why are monotremes and a few placental mammals restricted to Australia? Why could they not have been distributed anywhere else?
4B. Can your theory explain endogenous retroviruses?
4C. For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a possible way for it to emerge, naturally? And, how come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior? (For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, than Intelligent Design.)
Part 5: Politics and Values (These are not as important as the other four sections, though.)
5A. Why is it so difficult for I.D. proponents to distance themselves from religious fundamentalists?
5B. Why has so much of the resources spent promoting I.D. been used to fight court battles and school boards, and virtually nothing on labs or new research?
5C. Many creationists claim that Evolution is all a hoax, and a conspiracy theory. Why has there been virtually no effort, on the part of legitimate I.D. researchers to point out how Evolution science has already impacted our lives in positive ways? (Such as in the fields of medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc.) How do you answer the accusation that you are "endorsing madness through inaction"?
5D. Some people are under the impression that the values behind the Intelligent Design movement are only based on fear, oppression, and guilt. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
and is a little biased - rephrase somehow