Last year, Bill Dembski reported on how he was contacted by the New Scientist’s Bob Holmes, who assured him:
It seems to me the media coverage of intelligent design has mostly failed to present your case on scientific grounds, and I’d like to remedy that.
Of course, Mr. Holmes had no intention of covering the scientific case for design, and his resultant article was little more than your standard anti-ID hack job.
The problem is, presenting ID’s “case on scientific grounds” inevitably means attacking ID. Even ID advocates acknowledge that there’s no theory, and their own lists of ID publications are suspiciously devoid of new data.