This is a very clear statement that, at least, Phillip Johnson does not consider ID to be a scientific issue. This conflicts with the Discovery Institute's (DI) position that, while ID has religious implications, it is strictly a scientific endevor.
Being that Johnson is frequently considered the father of the ID movement and frequently mentioned by the DI on their podcast, it is quite interesting that DI can speak so favorably of Johnson's work without adressing this disagreement on such a fundamental point. It must be fundamental since one of DI's main complaints of ID coverage is that the media and ID critics (and Judge Jones) misrepresent ID as being principally religious. I believe I've even heard Casey Luskin (on a DI podcast) say that the ID critics ignore the definition that ID proponents, themselves use ... but not making an exception for at least one of the most promenant ID proponents.
