One needn’t invoke ID to defend Christian belief. Evolutionary science doesn’t even thwart Christian belief. But if someone takes the position that ID is a useful corrective for the mistaken claims of atheists, what happens if ID propositions fail? Doesn’t that run the risk of these same atheists coming back to say “I told you so”? By tying the perceived validity of Christianity to the rise or fall of scientific propositions like ID, I think one can incorrectly yoke the religion with something that is actually orthogonal to it. This is similar to YECs taking the stand that either the Earth is young or God’s word is fallible. It’s a hazardous and unnecessary path, IMO, to draw these lines in the sand.
But back to the original point. @terrellclemmons sounds concerned about Christian scientists going too far into methodological naturalism so as to possibly miss arguments for the God of Abraham. However, it appears that “pure ID” is operating by the same conventions, at least in authorized statements.