No. Not at all.
If it avoids the ultimate origin of life question then it implies it doesn't know where "life information" (e.g. DNA) came from. And it's on much firmer scientific ground. But gives IDers ammo.
Stein, according to reports, had Dawkins tied into knots on this very question.
As soon as you say "we don't know" in jumps God to fill the gap. For theists this is not a problem, but for atheists, it's a big problem.
Very true. But God isn't defined in this case except as the cause of everything. To say the cause of everything is the cause of everything isn't science. I could say "The eternal beast Booftaloo created everything from his fingernail clippings" and its just as valid as ID or Creationism without scientific evidence.
God doesn't "jump in" to these debates. He gets put there by other people who claim to speak for Him.
Science can explain some things. It can't explain others. It's the theists, not scientists, who can't stand "I don't know" and need anything wrapped up in a neat little package with a bow. For scientists, an unanswered question is just another line of inquiry (and possibly another grant proposal).
We would be living in an ignorant and benighted world if everyone accepted "in jumps God to fill the gap" and stopped further research. "In jumps God" has been used over the centuries to explain natural phenomena that were later explained scientifically. Had that research ceased, we would never have been able to limit the spread of disease, for starters.
What causes lightning? God. What spreads Malaria? God. Where do we get fire? God. But this time, when the creationists say God explains it and science should butt out, we're to simply accept that they're right for the first time?