A scientist who does not believe in the scientific method is no more a scientist than a priest who does not believe in God is a priest. They are both pretenders.
The analogy is problematic because it equates FAITH (the belief in something without evidence) with SCIENTIFIC JUDGEMENT (the belief in something due to evidence, as informed by the scientific method).
One must be allowed to question any scientific theory, within the bounds of the scientific method. One must also be allowed to broach the questions that may or may not bridge the observable - such as "What made the big bang happen".
I am not arguing one side or the other between ID and evolution, but am instead saying this analogy of apples to oranges doesn't work.
Should you teach that the bacterial flagellum evolved?