They see the need for and arrow of time, but don't yet have the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis so they posit God.
They see the possible need for something to be able to preceed itself in time. Without knowing that a positron is an electron going backwards in time, for example, they posit God.
They understand that our system of thought will always be complete but don't know about Godel so they posit a God who knows all with a supernaturally perfect logic.
Most interesting to me is this quote: "Gregory says, 'Sacred scripture transcends all other sciences in the manner of its expression, because in one and the same statement, while narrating an event, it proclaims a mystery.'"
And yet it is science, and not religion that proclaims eternal mystery. The anthropomorphization of eternal mystery in God makes God the killer of mystery a/k/a "uncertainty," which is fundamental to the universe.
So the first argument against Intelligent Design is that they put forward a God hypothesis without defining it. Nobody wants to make this argument because it says directly that science - a priori - questions the existence of God as it questions the existence of everything (if only by constantly asking "what do you mean when you say [anything and everything]?"). Science is a standard of proof and the God hypothesis does not meet that standard of proof.
On evolution, Wojtek has it a little wrong. Natural selection does cause speciation through isolation.
Boddi