Fair comment, point taken.
My original point wasn't stated as clearly as it should have been. Where 'Creationists' claim there are 'difficulties' in the current model of evolution, they are stating no more than scientists who are addressing questions in the current model of evolution; moreover, there is an exceedingly high probability (though never absolute certainty) that the answers to those questions will be consistent with previous findings. If they are not (and you need good science to establish if they are not), then the theory will be refined or, if necessary, rejected. That is how science works. Science, which is the ongoing quest for knowledge, welcomes challenges to its theories, welcomes new and difficult questions, because it is the pursuit of answers to those new questions that yields new knowledge, and that is the goal.
Given that, then why are Creationists making such 'special pleading'? Why are they not pursuing their challenges within science? Answer: because they are not actually doing science, which is the search for new knowledge, they are instead seeking to bend science to confirm pre-existing religious belief. That's theology--which has its place, by all means. But that place is not (and we agree on this) in a science classroom
The impression that you give hear on FR is someone who has some claim to make against everyone interested in intelligent design. I'm not educated on what all those interested in intelligent design think and do. Some of them may just believe that evolution alone is not capable of explaining things or that they see intelligence behind things and have no interest in confirming a religious belief. They may be out to prove what they believe but that's where a lot of science starts. Even Darwin was acquainted with Evolutionary concepts before he went on his voyage and he did not come up with it entirely from his research. I'm wondering if questioning the motives of all of them is fair. But, like I say I don't know all of them or any of them.