Right now I am watching this very intelligent and analytical person, Eugenie C. Scott, speaking on Research Channel.Although I can basically agree with many of her formulations, I see that she does have a "messianic" appearing streak to her as opposing/criticising "ID". She helpfully highlighted for me today the limitations of both "evolution" and "ID". Basically, what I got from her this afternoon is that "evolution" can claim no more than that life forms can change, branch into distinctive forms. Period.
Wiki article:"In 1980 Scott was at the forefront of a successful attempt to prevent creationism from being taught in the public schools of Lexington, Kentucky. From this grassroot effort in Kentucky and other states, the National Center for Science Education was formed in 1981. Scott was appointed the NCSE's executive director in 1987, the year in which teaching creation science in American public schools was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott#California_Wild_Controversy
Should we see this instance as the "science establishment" correcting itself, then? ;-)
"Scott issued a retraction letter published in California Wild that Science called a mea culpa.[59][60]In her letter, Scott admitted that Caldwell had not proposed the two creationist books to his school board, and also that the comment about misunderstanding science referred to someone else.[59]Caldwell dismissed the libel suit shortly after the California Academy of Science agreed to remove Scott's article from its website and publish a rebuttal letter by Caldwell and Scott's letter in the Summer 2005 edition of California Wild.[60][61][59]The California Academy of Sciences has never re-activated the link to Scott's article on its California Wild website.[62]"
(About author)