There is no actual evidence. The illusion of evidence is based on the false logic of assuming that absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence. For example, if one cannot provide evidence for a detailed causal chain of events that constitutes a natural explanation for the origin of a given phenomenon, then ID takes that as evidence that the chain of events is not natural - that is, artificial or supernatural.
One problem with this is that such "evidence" increases the *less* we know. That means the "evidence" for ID was stronger in the 1700's than it is now, based on this logic, because fewer things could be explained in terms of natural processes then. Increasing actual evidence logically requires one's knowledge to increase, not decrease.
Another problem is that ID cannot be disproven assuming such a standard of evidence. Since we will never be able to explain *everything*, there will always be "evidence" of ID out there waiting to be "discovered" (the Discover Institute is ... more.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.