I don't think that Phil is saying we should not evangelize, or throw the
Bible out of every debate, or never discuss how the Bible and science
relate, etc.
I think he's just saying that the Bible is not a part of the ID philosophy
of/approach to science, just as it typically isn't to non-ID science. Phil
rejects (erroneously, I think) methodological naturalism as an important
(let alone essential) part of science, but he doesn't replace MN with
explicitly Christian doctrine.
I really don't see anything pernicious in this, and you know that I'm fairly
skeptical of Johnson's ID claims. (Nutshell for those unfamiliar with what
I wrote in the past: very interesting, but pointing out the intriguing
possibility or even plausibility of it being true is not the same as showing
that it's in fact true and/or scientific.) It seems to me Christians and
others very properly align with non-Christian thinkers routinely where the
subject matter permits.
John