No, actually he doesn't--but the snip I had to make to fit the extract into 300 words meant sacrificing the short paragraph in which he gives other examples for context; sorry if my truncation here caused confusion on this point.
The history of science is full of unedifying tantrums and bouts of "mental anguish" by scientists who found out they were barking up the wrong tree (cf. cold fusion)--but those are cases where science invalidated their faulty findings. The current issue--ID--isn't about a scientific challenge, it's about an ill-intentioned attempt to either require science to confirm one narrow set of religious doctrines, or else to dispense with science altother.
Whether it is a "scientific challenge" or not depends on whether what it is challenging is "science."
The claim that biodiversity can be explained solely by naturally occuring forces has been made with such force that it has become dogma.
ID challenges that claim -- rationally, objectively and with measurable evidence -- without resorting to faith.