Furthermore, your signature suggests that
"Science adjusts its views based on what is observed... faith is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved"
I agree, yet it seems you are unfamiliar with "what has been observed" over the years. You and others choose to deny these observations and hence your faith preserves your ideology. neo-Darwinism has been a patch-work of quick fixes to accommodate the many new discoveries over the last decade. It is a theory built upon a foundation of quick fixes; a house of cards, that is now held up by nothing more than faith and repetition.
For those for whom it is more than an ideology, worldview or "calling", for those who would still call it science, it has failed. The debate should've at least progressed to Punc. Equ. or a post-Modern Theory by the majority, but it will not, perhaps cannot, as there is too much invested - both financially (paychecks and grants) and emotionally - in the neo-Darwinian dogmatic narrative.
There is vast debate to be had within the Intelligent Design field, they are had all the time. There are many challenges the neo-Darwinian crowd fail to address, so it's left to the likes of Myers, Dawkins and co. to resort to the old "ignorant" fallback to dismiss the argument, to which their sheople followers almost always respond with "Horaahhh!"