What stays with me is the revelation that the ID "scientists" aren't even attempting to demonstrate that their theory is viable by submitting any kind of research to journals. It's as if they know they're lying when they call it science. They have no expectation that the scientific community will ever consider their point seriously. They simply mean to bypass the messy question of whether or not they've got legitimate science to offer, and go straight for the hearts and minds of the public. I guess I knew this on some level, but I have this pesky tendency to want to, you know, give people the benefit of the doubt that they at least believe themselves when they lie, fer cryin' out loud.
In case you don't want to read the whole article, just check out this devastatingly tight argument:
If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it’s no solution to raise the theologian’s plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case, get it out of the science classroom and send it back to where it belongs.