@Agauger is doing work in population genetics.
It is also true that ID funds people in secret, and we are gonna just have to decided if we believe her if this is equivalent work or not. Until it is revealed, we won’t know for sure.
@Patrick I agree with you that most public ID work is not science as I understand it. The fact that there is some population genetics work legitimately being done does not somehow make this other public ID work scientific. I think we agree there.
I suppose I’m in the strange middle ground of trying to acknowledge legitimate work when I see it, even when it comes from a source most of us do not expect it from. I honestly am caught in the middle.
On one hand, I don’t agree that DI has never done anything interesting or important. On the other hand, I can’t say it was all good scientific work either. In general, much more often than not, I end up disagreeing with the ID work I see.
I do not, however, want to make an absolute statement that closes my mind and prevents me from acknowledging things that are important that come out. In general, I think ID has some interesting questions they are after, though I often disagree with their claims of answers. That is what worked so well about the Buggs/@Agauger dialogue. They came in good faith with good questions, that no one was taking seriously in the scientific work. They were not coming with poorly baked answers for us to accept. That created space for us to look at the questions together.