A couple more quick responses to the articles in "New Scientist" - which I have now bought!
ID is not creationism. Creationists don't recognise ID as creationism. ID'ers don't recognise ID as creationism. Creationism carries out science with a prior commitment to the authority of the Bible. ID doesn't. The fact that many ID proponents are Christians is actually irrelevant - firstly, some aren't; secondly, their religious beliefs have no more bearing on the validity of their conclusions than their sexuality or their height. To argue otherwise is a form of discrimination. Debating on the character of the proponents is not science. Arguing that they are pursuing a political or religious agenda may or may not be true - but again, it is irrelevant to the science of the issue.
The film at the Smithsonian, Washington D.C. was not "creationist". In fact, it wasn't about evolution at all. It is about the Copernican Principle. See the website if you want more accurate information.
ID is not anti-evolution. ID says that darwinian evolution doesn't answer all the problems. At the recent Galapagos Islands conference, reported by Michael Shermer in Scientific American, apparently as much was said by William Provine and Lynn Marguiles - but the science establishment didn't bat an eyelid. And yet ID is portrayed in New Scientist as being as stupid as somebody telling a class that it is disputable that the earth goes round the sun. Why?
