A broad lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for it's nonexistence.
Having less than 100% conclusive evidence for the nonexistence of something is not conclusive proof for the nonexistence of something.
That said, there is no broad lack of evidence of intelligent design in the universe.
There is enough broad evidence of intelligent design in the universe to support a reasonable belief in God, though still a belief by faith.
not 100% conclusive forever and always.
Whatever part is less than 100% conclusive is "faith".
concluding there is no lochness monster* is not a faith-based conclusion. It's an evidence-based conclusion.
Your logic fails because you draw a false dichotomy between faith-based and evidence-based.
Any evidence-based conclusion is ALSO a faith-based conclusion UNLESS the evidence is 100% conclusive.
There is nothing that forces anyone to hold an evidence-based belief that something is true
when the evidence is less than 100% conclusive.
The CHOICE to believe that something is true without 100% conclusiveness is the act of "faith".