So few creationist do a good job of providing intellectual thought to their arguments. I can understand that believing in intelligent design is a difficult position to hold, but they should make an attempt of postulating logical points for discussion.
I think the best they can do is ask questions, which in itself doesn't prove creationist viewpoints but it does spur reasonable conversation.
The complexity argument is one they use. Richard Dawkins addresses that one, though I don't think his argument is that strong.
The two questions I would ask if I was a creationist, is why doesn't abiogenesis and endosymbiosis happen today?
Again, a lack of information doesn't prove God, but it is much better discussion than their pseudoscience approach.