DaveScot vs Dembski Et Al

Good ol' DaveScot has once again stepped into a big problem, without recognizing it or admitting it. In this post where he takes PZ Myers to task for "projection" - put your irony meters on maximum - he says the following:

So the purveyors of Darwinian dogma continue to hold an exclusive but increasingly tenuous grasp on the indoctrination of young minds into their chance worshipping worldview. They know full well that any honest examination of the evidence will support natural selection changing the size of finch beaks and color of moth wings, that the fossil record and common genetic code among extant creatures strongly implies a deep common relationship among all species living and extinct, but that there is no empirical evidence that these relationships are without purpose, thought, or design.

He's saying what he has said many times, that the evidence strongly supports common descent but that no one can prove it was unguided by some intelligent agent. But in this, he is squarely at odds with Dembski and most of the other ID advocates. If he really believes this, why doesn't he criticize his fellow ID advocates when they make arguments that only make sense if one rejects common descent? Why isn't he taking Dembski to task for encouraging Coulter to make a bunch of incredibly bad arguments against natural selection (like the entire section on the peppered moths), or against common descent (like all of her lame arguments against transitional forms in the fossil record)? Oh yeah....wouldn't want to point out that Dembski makes arguments against common descent while simultaneously slamming arguments against common descent, not when Dembski is the only one willing to give him a platform to rant and rave like a lunatic.

Oh, he tries to make an argument to this end, disingenuously claiming that Coulter is only arguing against the notion of evolution as unguided. But that's utter nonsense and he must know it:

The other dishonest thing Paul does right off the bat is uses the term "evolution" in the loosest sense of descent with modification and then presumes that Coulter is disavowing that broad definition of evolution when in fact Coulter is doing nothing of the sort but is rather only bashing, and bashing really well, the baseless notion that evolution is a purposeless process driven solely by chance and necessity.

Completely false. Pray tell, Dave, why in the world would one make an argument against the peppered moth as an example of natural selection - not even speciation, much less common descent - if one is only arguing over whether common descent was guided or unguided? If one is really trying to support the position that common descent is fine, but it must have been guided, why would one bother arguing that there are no transitional forms and no observation of speciation events? These are arguments that only the densest of young earth creationists would make, not someone who accepts the evidence for common descent but argues that the process was guided by something. Coulter is doing nothing more than credulously repeating all the most ridiculous rhetoric of the creationists, and she's doing it with the full recommendation of the very people who keep telling us that they're so different from those creationists.