I haven't seen this picked up anywhere else, but Uncommon Descent recently mentioned interviews with William Dembski & Michael Behe by the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa, and carried at IDEAcenter.
Both interviews show how far removed the average ID supporter is from the reality of ID's Hideous (un)Truth.
In the first conversation, the interviewer gushes about all of the wondrous science ID has produced. Dembski has to point out that, err, there hasn't actually been any science resulting from his "ideas".
"CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?When you've picked your jaw up from the floor following that little revelation, check out Michael Behe coming so far off the fence on Common Descent to give the average Uncommon Descenter a clutcher...
WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."
"ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?Well, maybe I've got it all wrong? Maybe Dembski and Behe are just substantially more intellectually honest than the cdesign proponentsists I tend to come across.
MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."
What do you think?