Todd Wood
Young earth creationist and evolutionary biologist Todd Wood blogged:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.[[wood-2009]]

However, see Dr. Wood's follow up posts linked at the bottom of that blog post, as well as his dialog in 2014 with BioLogos president Darrell Falk.  At 15:59 Wood comments:

I did my doctoral dissertation in that field [evolution], I've been to conferences; I'm a member of evolutionary societies. I'm steeped in deep. I mean deep in the evolution community so I know it intimately well. And there's never been anything in there that's struck me as totally utterly irreconcilable with my creationist understanding. To be sure there are challenges and difficulties that still need to be resolved. But it wasn't an issue of "Oh my goodness I can't explain this." And I never ever doubted my faith.[[wood-2014]]

Michael Behe
Biochemist Michael Behe is one of the world's leading intelligent design proponents. He accepts common descent but believes evolution lacks enough creative power to account for the complexity of organisms.  In his second book, he outlined the reason behind his beliefs in the former.

The same mistake in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent--even the common descent of humans and chimps--although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explore where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life.[[behe-2008]]

However, Behe has commented elsewhere:

...some of my Intelligent Design colleagues who disagree with me on common descent have greater familiarity with the relevant science than I do.[[behe-2005]]

Dennis Venema
Dennis Venema is a population geneticist. At BioLogos (an organization that promotes theistic evolution), he writes about his deconverstion from being an ID proponent:

Having rejected ID, I began to look into the evidence for evolution. I can also clearly recall this transition, and, if memory serves, it happened on the same day I rejected ID. This transition, however, required only ten or fifteen minutes - just as long as I needed to read the first research article on my reading list: the 2005 Nature paper comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. I put the finished paper down on my desk, said “well, that’s that, then” out loud to my empty office, and sat back in my chair. The contrast with ID could hardly have been starker: here was nothing but argument from evidence. As a geneticist, I was fully capable of evaluating that evidence, and it was compelling. Humans and chimps were close relatives, and I was no longer an anti-evolutionist. Game, set, match. Moreover, my eyes were now open to the wonder and scope of evolution as a foundational theory of biology: everywhere I looked, evolution informed what I knew, whether in cell biology, genetics, immunology or developmental biology. In an instant, the pieces clicked together, and I reveled in the deeper understanding.[[venema-2011]]