A philosopher who recently underwent a religious conversion is not a compelling argument for scientific validity. It in fact underscores the truth that ID is about religion, not science.
So far as I know he has not become 'religious' beyond the basic deism implied by ID. And his reasoning was strictly scientific. As a leading atheist academic for decades he was very familiar with the now-wanting arguments for evolutionism.
You don't have any real data that ID is failing to make inroads in the sciences, I would point out. I suspect it is the same as was the case in Darwin's day: few minds were changes among the older folks, but the real action was among the youths. A new generation grew up believing in evolution, just as poll data suggests a new generation is growing up now disbelieving in it. It's interesting that this is coinciding with a drop in religious commitment, which blows away the idea that skepticism towards evolution is based on religious commitments.