I came very late to this thread, unfortunately, because once I’d read Ms. Phillips’ “response,” I had a great deal I wanted to say. Since it seems a few people are still dropping in, I’ll just point out what to me is among the most glaring fallacies in this piece of piffle and which from an admittedly quick scan of the comments above hasn’t yet been addressed.

Sez Mellie:

Refusing to accept that science and religion can be complementary — and indeed feed each other —because religious faith is out to lunch, they cannot grasp that ID is a metaphysical idea that comes out of but stands separate from science, in that science leads here to an idea with which by definition it must abruptly part company. Instead they insist that the two must be fused – and when that proves impossible, they cry victory.

But of course Charles (whom she goes on to quote as an example of such wrong thinking) has never asserted or cried any such thing. To the complete contrary, in the immortal words of his alter ego:

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God. Do not trust those who insist otherwise.
— Lao Stinky

Again, extremely poor research skills for someone who calls herself a journalist. And it does make you wonder about the validity of other points she makes. I no longer trust her as an authority on anything.