The article is quite right in that ID is nonsense but it was known to be nonsense from the beginning. Additional evidence that it is nonsense will make no impression on the believers. They even have their own journals with impressive sounding titles which they can refer to full of gibberish that has been "refereed" by other IM believers. In any case IM was never about proof but about giving fundamentalists a cover story (in this respect it has eerie similarities with much global warming "research"). While I wish the author well, I don't think his findings are going to alter much.

The Guardian (UK) Comment-is-Free section ran a recent series of blogs on this, starting here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/03/religion-atheism

with the subsequent posts below. The below-the-line psoters were pretty scathing, especially of Steve Fuller's article - he was a witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover-Area-School-District trial where he "essentially attempted a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

.

Intelligent design creationism was always scientifically bankrupt - it was addled in the egg. It has always been obvious that its only supporters are scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant religionists. The actual science community - in the US, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and essentially every other legitimate science organization - has posted numerous position papers stating that intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience - not science. This is not news.

Although I greatly appreciate a well formed bottom it cannot be the product of intelligent design. Felling trees to make toilet paper destroys habitat.

Nice article
I particularly like the fact it points out that ID is BOTH scientifically and theologically untenable. In Australia, at least, most mainstream churches accept evolution. ID is very much a fringe preoccupation.

Maybe the intelligent designer intelligently designed us to be flawed?

Otherwise if we were perfect then we'd be the equivilent of the designer. After all if there were such a designer then its intelligence would far surpass ours and therefore us assuming we know how such a being would think is the equivient of an ant assuming it knows how we think.

ID is an issue of faith. It can neither be proven nor disproven. The fact that some try simply shows their hubris and their flaws.

Equally Darwinism is an isue of faith that can be neither proven nor disproven - well at least not proven scientifically. To my knowledge no one has managed to observe the creation of a new species so the view that they are created naturally is mere assumption, not science.