Perhaps this is mean... Murtaugh has posted some of his thoughts on the conflicts of being a theist and a scientist, though he avoids addressing it directly until the last paragraph:

Just to conclude on an autobiographical note, I'll note that my own rapprochement with theism had no relationship to my thoughts on evolution, and much to do with thinking about the nature of human love and its possible relationship with the divine. That is, insofar as I've become a convert, it is via the traditional route of Christian witness, not information theory or flagella. As to the potential use of ID in bringing unbelievers to God, I quote Fr. Oakes, who cites Thomas Aquinas: "bad arguments for God's existence do more harm than good, since they give unbelievers an occasion to laugh." [Emphasis mine]

I won't say what I did after reading about justifying the existence of god with the nature of love. It kind of reminds me of this love-based derivation of time travel:

Time travel has long been within the realm of science fiction. It is also true that what Man can imagine must usually can be done, although not without effort. Experiment and theory lead to the same conclusion: time travel is not only possible, but easily practical. The definition of time itself relates to the physical value Love, measured in mass-seconds. Time is viewed not as a dimension in a continuum, but as a wave of Love arising from the light plane. Time travel is achieved by "surfing" like on an ocean beach to the edge of where love has been disturbed. The frame of reference of an inertial system is reduced to change in each of three physical dimensions as happening throughout the continuum. AXIOMS: 1. The universe as we know it is based on physical quantity "love". 2. Love is indivisible. Proposition a: Love limits communication Proposition b: Love is infinitely accessible Proposition c: Love is finitely variable Proposition d: A point in the universe is an arc in love-explained space/time or mathematically ...

Razib comments: Humor and theological disagreements aside-theists that can make a cogent defense of evolution are our best bet against the ID crowd. The fact is that only 10-15% are "non-religious" and well over half of those believe in God or a supernatural element in the universe. Less than 5% of America's population (and I'm being generous) would ever been open to unadulterated scientific materialism and its siblings. Physicists like Steven Weinberg will always be asked about "God," those theists that can elucidate the separation between science and religion are the best shot at ameliorating this tendency of Americans to look toward science to satisfy their spiritual yearnings. Also-though I personally think that the implications of a thorough scientific world-view pointing to atheism are strong-even overwhelming-when it comes to science the assumption of methodological naturalism is all that is absolutely necessary. On an aside-the best arguments against non-literalist Christianity come from literalists! Why? Because ultimately they share the same assumptions. The problem literalists do not note is that often non-literalist Christians, once convinced of the weakness of their theological superstructure, collapse toward skepticism rather than rebuilding toward fundamentalism. Also, The New Republic has their take-down of theologian/scientist John Polkinghorne online. It seems that someone is always try to cure the vision of the blind watch-maker.