I don't get your point.
What you said is true, but it tends to support my point that blind faith will come back to bite you.
For instance, one reason the creationists can never come up with a peer reviewed paper on evolution is they have preconceived notions that there is no such thing.
Blind faith works both ways. Abiogenesis -- to put it mildly -- is not established. What if it weren't true despite the expectations of many? Many believe it possible that everything can come into existence by undirected means. What if they are wrong? Shouldn't someone try to point that out to them?
For instance, one reason the creationists can never come up with a peer reviewed paper on evolution is they have preconceived notions that there is no such thing.
I don't know how narrowly you are defining "creationist". Since you believe in a "creator" to me you would be a "creationist".
Now the IDers aren't arguing "young earth" or even rejecting evolution -- Behe, IIRCl, has said he accepts common descent.
And of course the IDers are getting published. Why one was just published in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington". Of course the editor was then promptly fired , which may explain why they aren't published a lot.