Personally, I think intelligent design has the better argument.
I will agree that the argument for evolution includes far more scientifically-derived evidence to support it, but the problem I have with all that evidence it that is rests on the assumption that we have the ability to design an experiment that eliminates or controls for the possibility of supernatural influence. As such, all this evidence for evolution rests on an unfounded and untestable assumption that its followers do NOT acknowledge. To me this seems illogical unless the intent is to deceive!
On the other hand, while ID is largely based on faith and other "intangible" evidence, its subscribers do not try to hide the fact that they have no hope of proving or disproving their belief that God created the universe. Only amongst the most uneducated people who believe in ID do I hear words like "proof" used in conjunction with the scientific or other evidence.
As someone who took numerous graduate classes in research methodology, the philosophy of science, and the scientific method, I find it highy suspect when anyone asserts that their scientifically-collected evidence "proves" anything...especially when they are talking about the influence of a supernatural entity (the term "supernatural" meaning, by definition, that the object or entity can't be perceived or measured by "natural" methods...and whatever else it is, science deals purely with natural phenomena).
When I think about the great scientific minds I've known or studied in my life...people like Einstein, Hawking, Popper...they have one thing in common...all readily acknowledge the limits of science and all agree that even their own great knowledge doesn't preclude the possibility of a superior being that designed and implemented everything they're capable of observing and measuring with their scientific methods. Thus, when I hear someone who is far less intelectually gifted than these people claim that the evidence they merely studied or even the evidence they directly collected proves that this universe wasn't the result of intelligent design, I'm forced to either dismiss them as sadly ignorant about the very foundations of their beliefs OR conclude that they are motivated by something other than a desire to know the truth. In either case, their actions suggest that their conclusions aren't reliable and if they aren't reliable, they aren't likely to be valid either!