Not even wrong

In response to a candidate for Michigan governor endorsing ID, someone or other writes to the Detroit News Evolution theory relies on faith, too. Which means we don't even get past the title before the first error. But it gets worse:

Both creationists and evolutionists have logically derived hypotheses for the origin of our world and its inhabitants. Creationists believe in an Intelligent Designer who set nature in motion, and evolutionists believe that nature itself is the infinite being and the source of all we know.

No. Whatever "evolutionists" might be, the theory of evolution simply doesn't address what beings might be infinite, nor what the "source of all we know" could possibly be. That has nothing to do with the theory itself.

Both theories cite the same evidence, but they interpret the evidence differently based on their presuppositions. For example, science shows that a wide variety of organisms share an extraordinarily high percentage of DNA sequences. Evolutionists see this as evidence of a common ancestor, but creationists see this as evidence of a common builder.

The problem with answering the question of origins is that neither hypothesis is testable. We can't recreate the scenario to observe the process.

Actually, one hypothesis is testable. Testability requires that something would happen one way but wouldn't happen the other way. A hypothesis of universal common descent would be falsified by evidence that the shared DNA in different species didn't fit a very specific hierarchy. If things were different than this hierarchy, we would have tested and disproven common descent.

In contrast, while it's true that creationists can explain that hierarchy, but there's no reason any hierarchy ought to exist for them, let alone that there should be any shared DNA. They can explain anything, but cannot be proven wrong, which means it isn't testable.

We can continue to interpret the evidence according to our respective worldviews, but the underlying hypotheses cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Each must be taken on faith, meaning Darwinism is just as faith-based as creationism.

Obviously not. Scientists accept the evidence of evolution, and would reject it just as fast if the evidence were different. Creationists will twist the data to fit their a priori beliefs as needed. Those a priori beliefs are faith. Accepting evidence isn't faith.