Despite that, I have much more sympathy for William Saletan’s view on ID, which is that ID essentially cedes the case to science (http://www.slate.com/id/2062009). Put in Dawkins’ terms, proponents of ID, who, below the level of propaganda are often quite honest, actually bring questions to the table that are interesting enough to deserve an answer.

I do not have at hand the ID text inserted into the Kansas curriculum, but I have read it (quoted in New Yorker recently? more likely Slate?), & in my view it is innocuous, as it entirely consistent with the scientific method. This is also true of the various claims made by the academic supporters of ID. Indeed, but making their points coherently and in the context of recognised science, they allow others to respond, on the same level.There was a rather nice review of two books that present two of the main intellectual propositions from the academic ID folk, and the response of other academics in a recent New Yorker. If you are interested I’ll see if I can find it & send to you.