As I mentioned in another post, I am somewhat bewildered by the general thrust of the EC/ID argument. To my way of thinking, there are two broad categories: (1) theists who believe God created the heavens and earth from nothing, and (b) atheists who do not believe God exists and simply stop there. For (1) science enables us to obtain a deeper understanding of the Creation and we also see the grandeur, which testifies to the Glory of its Creator. For (2), they too obtain a deeper understanding of Nature, but without belief, they obviously respond to the material that makes up the Universe.
For those who profess to be (1), arguments on Orthodox Theism as opposed to Deism are theologically based (or should be) and thus would have little relevance to our understanding of science. My impression is (and to varying degrees, you, Jon and others of similar outlook) that much of the angst between EC and ID may stem from an erroneous attempt to produce an odd synthesis of theology and evolution. This may be understood from such phrases as God directed a meteor to make room for mammals, God aims uv rays to cause mutations, God uses chance/random stuff, we somehow know the mind of God through some science, and so on. We cannot make such theological statements.
My comment is intended to show that a coherent theology exists for (1) and that it would serve Christians well to try and use it as a framework for these debates - however until some of us accept that ToE is just that, a theory for biologists, and our framework requires a rigorous treatment of all science (provided by PoS), I do not think this debate would go far. We need to acknowledge that ToE is autonomous (stand apart) from the theoretical framework of the Natural Science, and this is as much a problem as the theory itself.