Looking at the way in which Johnson's books, beginning as bone fide challenges to Darwin, turned into instruments of cultural politics must leave any one with reservations about Darwinism in a quandary. We can see in retrospect that this, and now other, conservative gestures to attack Darwin's theory were not in good faith, and, as the now exposed 'wedge strategy' makes clear, was more a kind of stealth operation for chauvinist Christians trying to manipulate the culture and politics of right-wing factions. This Intelligent Design movement is clearly attempting to subsume all criticism of Darwin under the spiritual agenda of Christianity, and very limited theology at that. 

We are back to square one, trying to convey the problems with Darwin's theory, but now with a major distraction in the Intelligent Design scam whose core seems to be a debilitating metaphysical package meant to paralyze standard Darwin criticism with theological obsessions. In fact, Intelligent Design can be dealt with almost without trying. Long before the works of Paley the issues of the argument by design were severely debunked by figures such as Kant and Hume. And in some cases, Darwinists have cited these critiques of the argument by design. But we should note that those who cite Kant might do well to consider the implications of his thinking. The problem arises from the limits of metaphysics. To bombard the public, ignorant of this philosophic tradition, with misleading literature on design is a form of intellectual dishonesty. There is no big mystery about design. We almost instinctively inject a sense of design into living processes. It does not follow that this is a scientific gesture, and it does not follow that any of this makes a case for the argument by design. Anyone who wishes to proceed with a Intelligent design scam can safely assume the public will never read any Kant. 

The Intelligent Design movement has not produced, and could not produce, a single positive contribution to evolutionary theory. As a critique of natural selection, the works of such as Johnson have merit, but the moment they produce the design concepts, by sleight of hand, to replace this, they fall into one and the same deceptive theory-making they accuse Darwinists of.  

It may well be that a true theories of evolution are impossible, for good Kantian reasons, and certainly the result we see is the scramble to dominate this void with a scheme of propaganda, Darwinian, or religious. 

Thus, it doesn't follow that Darwin's theory refuted the argument by design. Therefore, these claims about design are misleading. They are being used to tweak our suggestibility, as if divinity, cleverly never mentioned, were lurking in the background as the true explanation. These tactics are as crippling as anything from Darwinism. 

If we look at the debate over Behe's 'black box', we can see a problem that these two misleading factions can never get straight. Complex molecules do generate this sense of design. It does not follow that naturalism fails, or that spiritual answers are required, least of all that some 'designer' (conveniently never defined) is behind all this. Behe is right that natural selection is inadequate. But that's all we can conclude, at this point. But we can be sure the Intelligent Design faction has learned its lesson well from Darwinist propaganda. Once they gain a toehold in the educational system, we shall hear little about dissenting viewpoints. 

The public deserves something more honest than this double whammy of propaganda machines. Just as the problems with Darwin's theory were becoming clear, this conservative policy conspiracy moves in with well-funded support behind the scenes to drown all efforts to properly move toward a post-Darwinian view of evolution. It seems the Intelligent Design movement is the best thing that ever happened to Darwinists. They can rightly complain that this new metaphysical enterprise is not science either. 

Let us summarize the situation. There are grave problems with Darwin's theory of natural selection. But the attempt to replace this with cunningly ambiguous notions of design is simply a mesmerizing sleight of hand. We have no proper scientific evidence for natural selection, and we certainly have nonesuch for any notion of Intelligent Design. 

It is probably the case that evolutionary theories in closed form are impossible at this point. We must stand guard against those who wish to exploit the metaphysical liabilities of vulnerable minds with schemes of fraudulent claims about evolution. 

We have come full circle. From Darwin on trial to Intelligent Design on trial. 

 Le plus ca change!