Ed Brayton has a brief follow-up reply to me. It is great to see that Ed does indeed make distinctions and does not lump us with the ID movement. He notes it is possible that we are pushing a religious agenda and are part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement, but acknowledges there is no evidence of this. The reason there is no evidence of this is because we are not pushing a religious agenda and are not part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement. He further notes that he does not see us "lobbying school boards to get ID into science classrooms either" and again, this is because we don't. In fact, years ago, I argued strongly against introducing ID into the science classrooms. Also, for years I have been noting that there is no "ID theory" and that ID does not qualify as science. And let's not forget that we embraced the Dover decision, and the post-wedge world, with a smile and open arms.
That Ed is able to make these distinctions is further evidence that he stands on principle. I would also suggest that the ability to make such a distinction further supports the validity of my critic typology. Since people like Krauze and I are not politically motivated, Ed is entirely correct to note that we "simply don't matter much." Type A critics have no reason to feel threatened by us. Yes, we often cross swords with them, but if you look closely, it almost always involves us responding to the stereotypes that are being perpetuated, stereotypes that can squelch a reasoned discussion of ID and have the potential to harm people such as Krauze and myself.
For example, consider the ID = creationism meme. When we object to this, it seems that many type A critics think we are trying to provide some sort of cover for the ID movement. This is a gross misinterpretation. Krauze and I object to the meme because, when focused on the concept of ID, the meme is false. Also, Krauze and I are not creationists. It would be foolish for us to remain silent about the meme as the meme steps all over the discussion that Krauze and I are interested in.
Of course, with type C critics, the situation is different. Since they are politically motivated, people like Krauze and I represent a threat to their agenda. Always remember that they hear "God" when "ID" is spoken. Thus, in the mind of the type C critic, we are among the "enemy."
What this therefore means is that there is likely to be a strong correlation between those who fixate on us and are most upset with us and those who are the type C version of Evangelical Atheists. The irony is then found in the way things have turned.
For years, critics have painted people such as Krauze and myself as part of a movement, while the critics postured as open-minded judges interested only in "evidence." But as we travel further into the post-wedge world, in turns out that the critics who dislike us most are likely to be the ones who are themselves part of a movement.