" 

 :The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community.  There are a handful of scientists who are ID proponents - you can pretty much count them without running out of fingers.  There are probably quite a few more who are sympathetic to the idea.  But no one is actually using ID in science.  They're a real political presence, yes, but they aren't using ID in their scientific endeavours.  So, as far as the ""science"" of ID, they don't exist.  We have a separate intelligent design movement article that deals with the political movement.  This article is about the so-called science of ID. 
 :How would you propose we change this article?  What sources are we missing, or are we misrepresenting?  It isn't really about our opinions - it's about representing sources in a balanced fashion.  What do you suggest we change?    "