Finally a columnist gets it right (sub only... go here):
The 'intelligent design' debate is different. First, let's call it what it is: ID is a proxy for a kind of creationism that may not be literally biblical but posits that an intelligent creator designed the world and still keeps a hand in its managment.
Proponents of intelligent design have made not a single, verifiable or refutable scientific claim. That is why it is not considered science. If it's not testable, it's not science, and ID has never been independently tested.
For an oppinionated columnist, this is excellent. For this last part isn't even opinion. It is what it is. And any journalist can put those three sentences in any article about Intelligent Design or Creationism and not be tarred and feathered with any sort of "bias" accusation.
So journos, please, more of this.