The Long Answer:
Well, obviously we don't think so. Many scientists have brought forth evidence to challenge intelligent design theory--and that's great! That is how science works. However, when these challenges are driven by philosophical motivations--be they ultimately stemming from personal metaphysical beliefs or beliefs over the proper methods of science--the objections ought to be carefully evaluated. Evidence may (or may not) exist to counter intelligent design theory. However, this evidence must be presented in a way such that the conclusions we come to are uncolored by
2) what other scientists are saying (i.e. peer pressure)
3) past experiences with the proper methods of science, or
4) past experience with prevailing paradigms in science.
This applies equally to intelligent design advocates; in some press articles, "overwhelming evidence" is cited in favor of intelligent design. One must always look at the standard of proof used when evaluating these claims. The evidence might not be overwhelming, but might be weak, and often consistent with intelligent design theory, or better explained by intelligent design.
In the end, we can't really answer this question for you--you can only answer it for yourself. And we encourage you to go out and read the actual writings of intelligent design proponents, and critics, and the responses from both sides. Remember that it is not the most passionate proponent, whether neo-Darwinist or intelligent design theorist, whose argument is most convincing: it's based on the consistency and coherence of the claims put forward to the explain the empirical scientific evidence observed.
Philosophical / Religious / Theological FAQs:
Political / Educational FAQs: