[megatherium]

So biblical literalists have come up with a new strategy . . .

Yup, already the writer is being tendentious, in the second paragraph. The ID folks (whether or not they're right) acknowledge deep geological time, and some of them also acknowledge descent from a common ancestor. They're not young Earth creationists; they're not wedded to a literal reading of Genesis.

Anyway, you see this kind of argument regularly. The NY Times indulged in this just the other day in an editorial that suggested that ID proponents just don't appreciate deep geological time.

[Moral Hazard]

"Yup, already the writer is being tendentious, in the second paragraph. The ID folks (whether or not they're right) acknowledge deep geological time, and some of them also acknowledge descent from a common ancestor. They're not young Earth creationists; they're not wedded to a literal reading of Genesis."

Did you RTFA? He criticizes Intelligent Design as a tautology that explains nothing. That didn't require any kind of straw man.

[curiosity]

Good point, the article has some flaws, and you pointed out one. It makes some good points nonetheless.