Intelligence Design is not only an interesting philosophical theory that has wide ranging cultural implications, but it is a contentious thorn in the side of Darwinists.

Here is an article responding in fear to the Intelligence Design movement. Here's the relevant argument in the interpretation of the movement.

Historically, evolution has been opposed by Protestant Fundamentalists.
These people desire their children not to learn Darwinism.
Court rulings have charted a course for our education system to teach Darwinism on grounds of separation of Church and State.
Therefore, they have cooked up philosophical and scientific disagreements.

Of course, in his view, these scientific disagreements have no validity. There's a cursory discussion (more of an assertion than an argument, certainly no more than an explication based on the principles of Darwinism - which, in my opinion is also the extent of Darwin's same argument in The Origin of Species) on the eye's development, opposing the powerful scientific argument advanced by Behe (who, however, focuses on cell biology) called "irreducible complexity."

I find this admission curious, however: "ID is an idea with a respectable philosophical pedigree, though no credibility in modern science."

Philosophical pedigree is critical in this area, because scientific theories rest upon philosophical beliefs in every case. The very practice of science rests upon a certain view of seeing the world. Therefore, having a philisophical pedigree opposing Darwinism seems a considerable route for disagreement.

Anyway, it's an interesting, and somewhat harsh (which is fine) article that seems designed to shut down depate on this issue. People shouldn't think critically about Darwin's theories? That seems foolish!

Here's an paper he links to explaining the CRC's philosophies. It's well argued, less rhetorical, and full of true things: Explaining the "leaked theocracy memo"