Impossibly Complex Distictions for a Sports Commentator

There is a huuuuuge and unescapable irony in that journalists rant about bloggers not having credibility to comment on pressworth issues, yet columnists like this one seem to think that they're capable of doing justice to questions about evolutionary theory (linked via Atrios). An excerpt:

First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't. ID is unfairly confused with the movement to teach creationism in public schools. The most serious ID proponents are complexity theorists, legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism (the notion that all of our qualities are the product of random mutation) is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world. Creationists are attracted to ID, and one of its founding fathers, University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, is a devout Presbyterian.

::Howl of Intellectual Pain::

• Complexity Theory is not what Intelligent Design Creationists are doing. Computational Complexity Theory is about classifying problems based on how difficult they are to solve. IDCers aren't interested in solving problems (which is what classifying problems requires), they're only interested in creating problems .
• Most (i'd venture nearly all) supporters of Intelligent Design are in fact Creationists. More importantly, these people support ID because they are creationists, and justify their support on theological grounds.
• Please note, "ID proponents ... legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism ... is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world." No mention of actual proof of the assertations they make, just that "legitimate scientists" believe it. Legitimate according to who one might ask?