[Right Wing Professor]

Regardless, though, the important thing is that you're acknowledging that ID's alleged unscientific nature is merely your own opinion.

Not at all. We've established it is a religious idea - according to Dembski. I've asked you for one other example of a scientific idea with a religious penumbra. And you've failed to come up with one. So we can deduce either that

ID is a scientific idea, but it is unique among all such, in that it has a religious penumbra

or

Scientific ideas don't have religious penumbras, and ID, because of its religious penumbra, is not a scientific idea.

Of course, there could also be the third alternative, that ID is not any kind of scientific idea at all, but a strategem to get the teaching of religion into school. This is supported by various pronouncements by Philip Johnson, and by the DI's own notorious wedge document.

Or there's a fourth alternative, which is that ID is simply a relabelling of creationism. This is supported by the fact that Of Pandas and People the first major work to use the term Intelligent Design, took an existing text draft where the word creationism was used and did a global find/replace with the term 'intelligent design'.

[inquest]

We've established it is a religious idea - according to Dembski.

What's been established according to Dembski is that the idea has religious implications ("penumbra" is just your own term). The same can be said of Darwinism.