Although the ID critics of Darwinism have usefully exposed the fallacies of Darwinism, the whole issue of ID is a grey zone of confusion. The pretense that Dembski has made a definable science of ID is a new myth that makes the ID-ists try to hole up a kind of standard, and that is nonsense.
The religious aspect of the ID group passes without comment, as if the ‘historical design’ arguments of the Old Testament were somehow valid in the context of ID discussions. The complaints of censorship are one-sided: the design factors of the eonic effect are suppressed and never discussed, and it is impossible to even comment at their blog.
Key terms in the evolution/ID debate are often misunderstood or misused. aKey terms in the evolution/ID debate are often misunderstood or misused. These include the word “evolution” itself.