"Faith-based reasoning" is an oxymoron.
And they keep adding "intelligent" in the names of their ad hoc hypothesis, of course alluding to a god.
For me this is more akin to compensate for their lack of intelligence.
I bet I'll live to see someone adds "intelligent" in a theory defending flat earth.
Only using a time machine. Homer, Democritus and Anaxagoras believed the earth was flat and we cannot disagree that there was intelligence in their thoughts considering the context of science at their time neither affirm that they were doing pseudoscience.
If you think about the definition of "intelligence" we also cannot deny that flat earthers of our time have good capacity for a illogical logic, irracional understanding and creative problem solving to find answers to all sorts of difficult questions. That's what we could call bad intelligence.
I think that the point here isn't intelligence at all but the meaning of the word "believe" and to recognize that there is a difference between "believing in" and "believing that". “Seeing is believing” is one kind of “believing that.” In contrast, we “believe in” something when there’s no evidence and the belief isn’t falsifiable. I recommend you to follow this
link for more information.
Flat Earthers often talk in terms of "believing in", like a religious faith, but with
denialism. Flat Earthers often see themselves applying the philosophical approach of skepticism but can't understand that
scientific skepticism and denialism aren’t the same thing at all.
On the other hand, "believing that" treat perception as reality and the politically correct democratization of opinion, unfortunately, put the
personal belief placed on a equal footing with expertise.