Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".
Nice observation. I know that blind faith is certainly my stumbling block, but I think there are better, certainly less falsifiable, arguments for creationists that they could be using: fine tuning for one.
The ID argument is slightly more palatable if it was argued from the 'God the Clockmaker' angle, and human evolution was the inevitable result of initial design and the creation of the right conditions.
What if tomorrow we find out that abiogenesis is a natural process? Do we keep pushing back the line? If so, why even bother?
I don't see how that invalidates the argument that god is still the source for design of existence as we know it; especially if conditions sympathetic to (wrong word, but tired sorry) abiogenesis and life as we know it are inherent in the design.
The problem I see over and over again is that most creationists set the bar to far forward because they get caught up in literalism. Why set a bar at all.
Who knows, maybe abiogenesis not only occurs, but it occurs much more frequently than we think BECAUSE that is the fundamental nature of reality as created by god.