[VadeRetro]

Why concede all of that nice, systematic, orderly ground, plus much of biology, and then make a stand on evolution?

Why indeed? By the time you've given up on Young Earth and hyper-literal Genesis, evolution should be no big deal. The emotions won't die. Just as the liberals never stopped going after Nixon, the neo-creos are defined by "anything but evolution."

There's probably more than one reason. Some haven't really given up on literal Genesis. The rush to embrace ID has a large component of stealth creationism, the wedge strategy, that sort of thing. ID writers are getting rich off of the Bible belt types they claim to stand apart from. And there are still people who don't want to be descended from apes/monkeys/protozoans. Any knowledge they don't want is bad science.

[Chico]

*And there are still people who don't want to be descended from apes/monkeys/protozoans.* I take it then you do "want" to be?

[Sabertooth]

There's probably more than one reason.

Yeah, but I think a few of them are on the evolutionists side, when they tread (often wittingly) into areas that are beyond agnosticism.

In the causal/acausal dialectic, slipping in casual "scientific" references to "random" or "natural" causes for the universe or the laws and properties of it ought to set of alarms for all concerned. There's no true scientific basis (or need) for it, and it only exacerbates the mostly unnecessary conflict between science and theology.

Methinks a more properly agnostic scientific community, once shed of its veiled atheism, would be in a better position to criticize special creationists... Or (gasp!) agree to more peaceably disagree. But there's a lot of hubris and pride in that camp.