And the New York Times, of all places. PZ Myers simplifies it greatly:
Please, New York Times, we don’t need yoqr help if all you can do is shuffle credulous journalists with no understanding of the issues through the story. If you aren’t going to put someone on the case who understands biology (like Carl Zimmer, for instance), don’t bother. All you’re accomplishing is to give frauds and charlatans and bible-bleating pseudoscientists respect they do not deserve.
If only we could not bother with them. Alas, their credibility has ghostly inertia: most of the readers seeing the articles will never hear from the people criticizing them for being written by fools.
Some weeks ago, back before Bush came out in favor of ID, Chang got in touch with me about this piece, essentially asking what was up with Dembski. I did try to explain that the answer was “nothing of any scientific substance, just an attempt to fabricate a controversy” — indeed I tried to explain that in some detail — but either I wasn’t very good at it, or the idea that objectivity means “opinions on shape of the Earth differ prevailed.
Note to future self: “They’re just full of shit,” is a reasonable thing to say about Intelligent Design people, if it’s that hard to make the point with reasoned explanation.