Matt Young and Taner Edis have a book published by Rutgers University Press entitled "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" (see Panda's Thumb). As a non-scientist, I am interested in reading scientific critiques of ID theory. I have mostly kept my criticisms of ID on philosophical grounds – the fact that it's a semi-secularised creationism which lacks falsifiability and defies the naturalistic mandate of the sciences. Of course, creationism – even ID – can be defeated on pure philosophical grounds because it is not science.

It has always amazed me how groups like the Discovery Institute try to sound scientific, when they are plainly more akin to a group of activists clamouring for the 'recognition' of being taught in schools than the true academic recognition of proving that they are right.

We have a little TLA (three-letter acronym) in the geek world for what people like Dembski, Behe and Johnson are doing: FUD. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". Knowing that they have no chance to win on merits, they pour a slippery oil-slick of fear (ethical arguments), uncertainty (metaphysics and the existence of deities are, by their very definition, uncertain) and doubt (transitional fossils!).

I'm looking forward to reading what Young and Edis have put together, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like it'll clear up some of the FUD the ID-iots have been spreading.