They haven't figured out a good angle yet. Imagine their frustration. The John Templeton Foundation gives out nearly $60 million per year "to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science" (according to their website), and none of it is going to the clowns who push ID.
Perhaps this quote from the Dover decision will help explain why Templeton isn't interested in funding ID:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,[emphasis added]Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 89 of 139
as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.
No supporting peer-reviewed papers, and no research or testing. Sounds like a pretty good reason to be dubious about ID's claims to being scientific.
Templeton has been influenced by what is probably burnable heresy. I wish that had been left out of his bio. ;)
They're [creationists] still thinking how to spin this. Give it time.They're still busy trying to recover from the Dover debacle by explaining how Judge Jones is no true Scotsman:They haven't figured out a good angle yet.
Dover in Review, pt. 4: Are the newsmedia reinventing Judge Jones as a conservative Republican?... I do object to the media's transparent attempt to reinvent Judge Jones in order to supply a veneer of credibility to his incredibly biased decision. The media are cultivating the impression that Judge Jones must have been fair and impartial (his sloppy and biased opinion notwithstanding) because he is a deeply-religious conservative who should have been initially sympathetic to the school board and intelligent design.
In reality, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jones is either a conservative or particularly religious. ...