A most stimulating discussion. There are, however, some incredible misconceptions and ommisions regarding ID research that have been allowed to persist throughout this discourse.
First, ID theorists start with the scientific evidence, or rather the current shortcomings as it relates to evolutionary theory (creationism, on the other hand, starts with an ancient text, and tries to make the evidence fit). Their conclusion is that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are in fact proved false by that evidence. Behe's assertions of irreducible complexity at the microbiology level being one example. ID'ers then posit that the intervention of an intelligent agent is a better explaination for this complexity.
The first glaring misrepressentation by opponents of ID is that ID'ers simply state, "a designer did it," and leave it at that. On the contrary, scientists involved in ID research undertand the need to back their hypothesis with evidence. To do so, some have turned to information theory as a possible avenue of research, and a concept known as "specified complexity." The basic premise is that the "fingerprint" of intelligence is detectable and prove-able.
I'll construct an example for you. Let's say you come upon a peice of natural white marble. In one irregular face of that block of stone are many swirles of silver gray (the natural patterns found in marble). The patterns certainly are complex, but complexity itself does not denote intelligence was involved in creating that complexity. If you look hard enough, you will likely find certain swirls that look like letters (english, for example, but any language will do). These swirls have some specificity, because they can be construed to look like letters, but only in the mind of an individual viewer. Furthermore, those psuedo letters convey no useful information.
Now imagine instead that you come upon a wedge-shaped marble block, whose shape is that of a perfect parallelogram. Carved in the marble are the words "Cap stone; place at center top of arch." You further look around and notice two pillars of marble that curve into an arch, with a gap at the top that eactly matches the size and shape of the "capstone" block. This stone block is both very complex, and highly specified. It is said to posses specified complexity. Mathematically, it is possible to determine the probability of the letters lining up, and the stone being exactly shaped to fit the gap. It is also possible, so such ID scientists as Willian Dempski claims, to determine if enough time has elapsed since the big bang for that specified complexity to have arrisen through naturalistic processes. If it could not, than intelligence was involved. ID theorists hope to apply this kind of mathematical analysis to such things as DNA and molecular machines. A single living cell is analogous to our capstone, but infinitely more complex.
A second misconception is that ID scientists want ID taught in the schools. In general, they do not. They believe it is still in its infancy, and has not yet been sufficiently developed to warrant placing it on a par with neo-Darwinist evolution. Discovery Institute, a major center for ID research, has actually fought against teaching it in schools, as they feel it isn't ready for that yet. It is about academic freedom for them (the question that started this whole thread, in case you missed it). They want their studies and work to be peer reviewed, to "pass muster" within the scientific community. What they get is attack and oppression instead.
"There is no critism of evolution," evolutionists claim, "because we asked all the scientist that agree with us and they said so." "ID isn't science, because it hasn't been peer reviewed," evolutionists clain. But they won't review it because "ID isn't science." Fortunately, the work of ID scientists is making inroads into the serious scientific community (peer reviews and all), despite the dogmatic resistence of the majority. The article that this beleguered Smithsonian scientist had the gaul to approve for publication was peer reviewed, rigorously and according to all the appropriate standards.
On another note: Much of evolutionary research (most, I'd say, but I don't have statistics to back that claim) starts from the assumption that there is a naturalistic, random, and unguided (as in "no guiding intelligence) explanation to life...all the way from the origins of the universe, though the origins of the first living cell, and to include all the diversity of life that exist and has ever existed. In otherwords, with an assumption. ID researchers starts with a different assumption, backed by what they see as credible evidence, both against evolution and for design, and try to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
A final note: Many of the scientist who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" proclaimation are not religious; some are. If a scientist believes in God or other supreme creator, does that automatically invalidate his work when it runs contradictory to Darwinian evolution, or supports intelligent design? If so, what then do we make of Dawkins, who said, "Darwin has made it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist"? Does it automatically follow that an atheistic scientist's work that supposedly supports evolution should be discounted because it happens to fit in with his belief system?
