Right out of the gate this article seems to stumble over the truth. An internet search shows that Carole Thaxton is a developer of home school materials and is qualified as a high-school biology teacher. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there is a difference between a high-school biology teacher and a biologist.
Her husband is a chemist and is associated with the Discovery Institute. It's looking more like this was a religious gathering of believers sponsored by the Discovery Institute rather than a conference of legitimate scientists exploring actual science.
Here's an interesting critique of Stephen C. Meyers (the head of the Discovery Institute) review article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I think the following paragraph nicely sums up the fallacies perpetrated by the ID crowd:
"Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception as a political movement: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation.
Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented in this paper, just as such an account has been absent from all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why. Only a reasonably detailed model provides empirical expectations that can be tested. ID did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model."
You trying to rain on their parade?
good post.
"Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why."
Interesting analogy, and maybe useful for ID proponency without meaning to be. A forensic approach, rather than a classic scientific one, may be more appropriate for accepting or rejecting ID. What would a study of the "evidence" left produce to a jury? Would life as it is today, and in the fosil record, be seen as a totally chance occurrence (naturalistic evolution) or as a result of a deliberate act by some designer? Examine the total body of evidence from a "legal" point of view. Where would this lead?