Intelligent Design creationism insists it's not dead yet

The New York Times provides yet another data point for The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. Discovery Institute's President Bruce Chapman gives us this near perfect example:

Contrary to "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker" (Week in Review, Dec. 4), more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism.

Yep, more and more scientists have been getting ready to dump evolution for -- for what exactly? There is no theory of Intelligent Design. Chapman trots out the Prague Intelligent Design conference, which was greeted rather tepidly by actual Czech scientists:

"Yes, there are a lot of different alternatives [to Darwin's theory of evolution] but not scientific ones. In fact, Darwin's theory is still the only possibility and very satisfactory possibility to explain the origin, the changes or evolution of life on our planet. I think intelligent design is just a new strategy of the opponents of scientific explanation of the origin of life, a new and quite successful strategy but not for scientists, just for the common public."
...
"Among the scientific community, there is no support for [intelligen design.] As far as I know there is no real scientist who takes this approach seriously." [Jaroslav Flegr from Prague's Charles University and author of the book "Evolutionary Biology"]

Chapman also cites Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin" list which is, as the title suggests, not a statement of support for Intelligent Design creationism, but a rather tepid statement of skepticism which could easily be signed by someone who holds the consensus view that the modern synthesis is correct (if that someone were to ignore the political motivations of the list's compilers.)

Chapman's closing is hilarious:

Yes, there is strong, organized opposition to intelligent design, but that is nothing new. To my knowledge, none of the critics quoted in your article supported the theory in the past. So their opposition now is hardly a surprise.

So the fact that the vast majority of scientists recognized the vacuity of Intelligent Design creationism without having accepted it first is somehow evidence that Intelligent Design creationism is still going strong among scientists. It's not whether or not the opponents of Intelligent Design creationism ever accepted it that determines its validity as a science; it's whether Intelligent Design creationism's proponents ever do any Intelligent Design oriented science. And there is a dearth of science done by Intelligent Design creationists.