Demski's illusions

Over at Uncommon decent (sorry, no link to that tard site), Dr. Dr. William Dembski definately does not get it. He asks a former Intelligent Design proponent to agree to the following:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

Hummm, lets see.

(1) ID raises important issues for science.

No, it doesn't. ID is religion, not science, so it cannot raise any issue for science.

(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.

They got their fair hearing, and failed.

(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.

Part one, yes, because ID is not promoted through doing research and finding facts, but through popularisation and high school curricula. Part two, no, because it is discussed freeely at universities, found to be creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Do some research and show some proof, and you will have a case.

(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

No, the lack of coherent logical thinking (crucial for academia), the underhand way of promoting articles (what, should I use the normal rules of peer review?), the lack of publications, etc. cause that.

O well, Demski will never learn that he is not even a pseudoscientist. Two Ph.D.'s does not change that. That is only a sign that you can jump the hoops, the proof is in the peer-reviewed articles!