Forget about non-Christian evolutionists and 6-Day Creationists for a while. Let's narrow our focus to the Christians from both camps: What are Theistic Evolutionists (TE) and Intelligent Design theorists (ID) saying about the scientific enterprise and Christian faith?
Being untrained in science, I'm like many other believers who find ourselves caught in between TE and ID. When it comes to this issue, we just lack the information to situate ourselves. As if we are stuck in the middle, destined to be ignorant. In a Malay idiom, "Bila gajah lawan gajah, kancil mati di tengah-tengah." (When two elephants fight with each other, the mouse-deer perished in the midst).
Yet we are not allowed to find comfort or contentment in ignorance. The fact that the sciences, biological science in particular, have permeated into almost every level of the society, we should not be alarmed to hear its discourse even in the church, among fellow believers. On the other hand, there are non-believers who expect Christians to be rather deluded over reality, and hence they need to be engaged head-on.
But when we try to engage on the matter, it seems that we are torn, just like the tiny mouse-deer that found itself between the two furious fighting elephants. We often frustratingly don't know which side should we align ourselves with.
TE embraces natural evolution and the belief in a creator God. ID is advocating an "effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."
First, the language used in both camps are loaded and confusing. For example, there is a connotation that a phrase like 'natural selection acting on random variations' contradicts the mysterious ways of God working in the creation.
To the TE, such phrase does not negate or exclude God's involvement within creation. While the ID take it to mean 'undirected process', as defined above.
But this is not just language game. The ID thinks that the space allocated for God in TE perspective is redundant. To the ID, the claim to ignorance over God's mysterious occupying method in the biological world, which run by natural selection and random variation, is just putting God in the gap. It's like making the invisible God more invisible.
But of course we know that it is futile to make an already invisible God more invisible. This charge against the TE is invalid as ID's own explication of God's involvement is limited: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Hence we should not confuse ID with Creationism and think both as the same. Similarly Ronald L. Numbers, who is critical of ID, "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement" but also recognize that it is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."
On the other hand, the TE sees ID as undercutting the very purpose of science,
"Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program." (Italics added)Hence the challenge for ID remains to produce a distinctive research program. Unless this happens, it is vague to see how ID able to contribute to scientific advancement or education. The working paradigm of evolution is pushing the scientific community to more discovery (for eg. the Tiktaalik, Simon Conway Morris' evolutionary convergence), while the ID seems to find contentment in status quo.
Given the lacking of ID contribution to the scientific enterprise on one hand, and the continuous successful scientific advancement provided by evolution paradigm, I take side with the TE. At least for this moment.
My resources for TE are taken from the International Society for Science and Religion, while ID are from the Discovery Institute (their Intelligent Design website, their list of hundreds of scientists who dissent from evolution perspective).
Another useful, brief, and readable source is the downloadable publication by the National Academies: Science, Evolution, and Creationism.