"I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor."
It would seem, then, that the scientific method as it now exists is inadequate to deal with some categories of real phenomena. The problem is the tendency to interpret that limitation as proof of the non-existence of such phenomena.
"If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God."
Yes, I have to agree with that. Such a risk does exist. But that would be a misapplication of ID, IMO.
"On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation."
Very true.
"Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God."
Yes, and I don't think ID should be trying to do that.
This tendency is unique to the phenomenon of secular humanist philosophy. Officially, no scientific theory takes any position on the influence of God, positive or negative - people are incorrect to assum otherwise. Whether or not science is inadequate to deal with certain phenomena remains to be seen - it's inappropriate to assume that specific items are explainable by God's direct intervention only - we may have a scientific explanation of such items ten, a hundred or a thousand years from now (or maybe not). Even if we never explain a phenemonon scientifically, that doesn't conclusively prove it is unexplainable - science has limited power pertaining to such questions.
I don't see how naturalistic evolution disproves God's involvement in our creation any more than plate tectonics disproves God was responsible for the earthquake at Jericho, though. Naturalistic causation and attribution of causation to God are one in the same, in my book - only the former is subject to empirical study, though.