Bogus, part 3

I have to apologize. My intelligent-design commentary hasn't been fair, because I did not get any conservative opinion on the subject. Well, let's fix that! Here's John Derbyshire:

I like a good knock-down argument as much as the next person, but I must say, ID-ers are low-grade opponents, at least if a bulk of my e-mails are any indication. They are still banging away with the arguments I first heard when the whole thing first surfaced 10-15 yrs ago. "What use is half an eye?" "The odds against this are a trillion to one!" etc. etc. There is nothing new here. I understand why biologists get angry and frustrated with ID-ers. All the ID arguments have been patiently refuted many times over. The ID-ers response is to come back with the same arguments...

...The notion of the ID-ers, that you can find Him by staring hard at the gaps in our current scientific understanding, seems to me to be a sort of comic-book metaphysics, betraying a dire lack of imagination, and an utter waste of time.