I have to start by saying I don't have a dogma in this fight, beinst I'm a Catholic and my Church does not require a literal view of the first chapters of Genesis (and hasn't at least since St. Augustine of Hippo and the Alexandrian Fathers 1700 years ago--- who interpreted it spiritually and allegorically)---
But having said that, I say that I.D. is not actually a faith. It is testable, at least implicitly, as illustrated in this article itself. If you can show that an "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum is in fact reducible to working sub-parts, you've successfully tested an I.D. concept by proving it to be dubious in that particular case.
Similarly, if you show that a bacterium has developed a previously-nonexistent gene for producing nylonase, and a gene is (per Dembski's definition) Complex Specified Information, you've shown that CSI is a natural, mutable phenomenon.
This looks a an UH-oh moment, a major challenge for the ID people. But let them debate: the debate itself may be the spur that drives even more scientific investigation. ID may not be a fully ramified descriptive-explanatory-predictive theory, but it is still a stimulating heuristic critical tool. O felix culpa.
ID's most interesting claim, to me, is that design is empirically detectable (and thus, not a matter of "blind faith.") Criminal detectives, cryptography experts, archaeologists, and SETI investigators proceed on the assumption that there are some measurable criteria by which they can distinguish naturally-occurring patterns from designed messages and rubble from designed artifacts.
Let the ID proponents like Dembski and Behe work out their empirical criteria and see where we go from there. And if God is doing His work via a quantum-driven mutation-selection mechanism, what is that but His Word echoing through the ages? He's not bound by time and space. Deo gratias.
Thank you - I like reading comments written by my intellectual superiors!
Not kidding.
(Looks like you used the list on my profile page - I better update it!!!)
I very rarely see the forensic science angle brought up on these threads. Can't for the life of me understand why ... :)