That depends entirely on the contents of “evolutionary science.” For example, if “evolutionary science” insists that it is genetically impossible that all human beings who have ever lived descended from Adam and Eve alone, then it certainly is against Christian belief as that belief was understood by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc. (Whether Christian belief on this point is capable of modification from the classical Christian understanding is another question.)
But I’m not doing that, nor are ID theorists doing that. I’ve just said that the specifics of any religion aren’t covered by ID, and that ID offers no defense for them. The validity of Christianity, even for ID proponents, depends on evidence that comes from outside of ID.
I agree that one shouldn’t tie positions to other positions unnecessarily. E.g., the BioLogos folks and other TEs have often tried to harmonize Christianity with evolution by making a huge appeal to alleged statements about “randomness” in the Bible, but if evolutionary theory changes (and scientific theories do change) so that “randomness” becomes a much less important cause of evolutionary change, and structural necessities related to chemistry and physics become much more important (as some of the Altenberg scientists believe), then the Christian apologetic of BioLogos will become outdated, and evangelicals will have to scramble for Biblical passages that speak of necessities or laws or the like. And blowing in the wind, changing one’s Biblical interpretation whenever science changes, and purely because science changes, will make Christianity look ridiculous.
But that’s not what is happening in ID. Even if every argument ID makes should completely fail, the case for Christianity would remain untouched. Christians, even ID Christians, don’t believe in their religion because they have read some proofs of design by Behe or Dembski, so if those proofs are refuted, Christianity can just keep on going. ID puts belief in Christianity far less at risk than do those who are willing to make massive changes in exegesis and theology every time “science” snaps its fingers.
What the ID folks have shown (and not just them, but others in philosophy and other fields) is that the popular rhetoric that “science has demonstrated that there is no design” is hollow, and that in fact science has shown no such thing. Even if ID folks never succeed in providing a convincing demonstration of design, they (along with certain philosophers, e.g., Plantinga, Feser) have succeeded in achieving at least a draw. The claim that science has made belief in design or belief in God impossible is no longer taken seriously among educated people, except for a few ultra-science-geeks and their journalistic cheerleaders. Even the atheist philosopher Ruse winces at New Atheist rhetoric along this line. The fact that neither side can prove its claims (that design is real, or that design has been decisively refuted) it itself indirectly favorable to religious faith, because it leaves potential converts to religion free to consider religion on its own merits, without regard to whether or not it is supported by science. So ID doesn’t have to win; it just has to establish a draw, for its existence to indirectly benefit religious faith.
But ID doesn’t adopt any version of “methodological naturalism” that would rule out design inferences. So ID doesn’t rule out coming to conclusions about the universe that are very compatible with the existence of the God of Abraham. That’s the difference between ID and the doctrine of the New Atheists. If ID is correct, the God of Abraham may well exist; if Dawkins etc. are correct, the God of Abraham definitely does not exist. Which of those outcomes, in your view, is more favorable to the future of Christian belief?