Well, you assume that there is no other explanation than your's that is based on the evidence.
Not really. We assume that there are none that we know of. The ones we know about have been refuted.
Many who believe in ID or Creationism would ironically also think that their explanation is derived straight from the evidence (granted many also blindly believe it, which I don't endorse). So maybe your's isn't the only one based on the evidence as you had thought.
But they demonstrably do not use the same evidence. So, we are correct in assuming that there is no known alternative to evolution.
Also, if you've assumed everything else but what you believe is a lie, and you close your mind to those things ...
No such assumption made. We assume that they have been refuted, yes, but not necessarily a lie. Our minds were open, we considered those things and then they were rejected. Very simple. Why would we continuouslly go back to ideas that have been rejected?
... then first, how can you expect others to open their minds to your point of view in a debate,...
We don't make that assumption. But it would be nice if they did open their minds, just as we opened ours to their ideas and found them wanting. But no, I do not expect anyone to have an open mind.
... and second, what's the point in studying science or debating if your conclusion is already made up?
We study science for many reasons. To debate creationism is pretty far down the priority list, believe me. This is pure entertainment for some of us.
Also, many Id theorists and Creationists have very structured line of reasoning from evidence. You might try looking into the Discovery Institute's work.
Been there, done that. Having a structured line of reasoning is not the same as being correct or scientific. For instance, arbitrarily rejecting radiometric dates (evidence) can have a noticable effect on precision and accuracy no matter how structured or logical one might be.
™ Version 4.2
