“Mike, along with S&B, takes the “high road” that ID must first be developed further as a scientific and scholarly program before it may be legitimately taught in public school science curricula. Before the dissolution of my ID think tank at Baylor, my sentiments were largely the same. But I’ve come to reject this view entirely.”

Dembski must think we just fell out of a tree to take his word that for him science is the intrinisic good. I’d have less trouble believing George Bush loves to read high brow literature.

I’m glad to see these basic facts about the vacuousness of ID being pointed out and hammered on.

Luskin and the 2nd tier promoters like Sal Cordova and his (yuck) followers tend to retreat from these sort of arguments into babbling about how “design” is in fact being used all the time by scientists and “everybody does it” and its a “valuable heuristic” etc. None of this babbling is responsive, of course, to the basic charge which is that for all their complaining about evolutionary biology isn’t convincing (to them), the ID promoters have precisely nothing useful to add to scientists’ understanding of biology.