Why do some critics of ID insist on employing such rhetoric? Why would someone insist on viewing this debate through the filters of the "Intelligent Design Creationism" label? For one thing, it emerges from and taps in to their stereotypes. Many ID critics have much previous experience arguing with Creationists and thus their experience has shaped and conditioned their perceptions. This then leads to the psychological phenomena of transference, where anyone arguing for ID is perceived through the impressions acquired previously by arguing with Creationists.

The nice thing about Plait's promise for more rebuttals is that we'll get to witness the evolution of an ID critic in his early stages. Clearly, he comes to the debate with his mind entrapped in the YEC template. Let's watch how it shapes his perspective.

On the other hand, he may be getting some "lessons" behind closed doors.

Seriously, for someone who proffers logic and scientific enlightenment, Phil is doing pretty much a bad job. I haven't read such a bad opinion piece as this one in a while.