The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

I wasn't expecting much from this book on Intelligent Design. From what I'd heard, ID was just a watered down version of creationism - and the PI guide series tends to be filled with right wing rants. I was, however, pleasantly surprised.
"Darwinist" thought has dominated biological discussion and taken credit for most of the advancement in biology. This book pokes holes in some of those arguments. Many advancements in biology have occurred without regard to Darwinist thought. Even when evolutionary principles are involved, they are usually micro-evolution principles - principles that do have real world proof. (Intelligent Design advocates agree with these ideas.)
The author points out that Darwinist "macro-evolution" of species generation has rarely (if ever) been seen "live."
Also, while "Darwinists" often criticize Intelligent-Design advocates as merely propagating religion, many of the most ardent Darwinists are also ardent atheists (such as Richard Dawkins). Their pushing of Darwinism is tightly couple with a "religious" viewpoint.
In the end, religion is probably the only thing that can settle the evolution debate. Even Darwin has admitted that the geological record has problems. Without some sort of divine intervention it will be impossible to definitively determine the origins.
The funny thing is that despite the rhetoric, it probably doesn't matter very much to biology whether life was "designed" or purely "evolved". Even literal creationists give the world at least a few thousand years of age - which would still allow for substantial "evolution" to occur after creation.
The big problem with intelligent design is the difficulty society has with religion. Years ago, laws prohibited the teaching of evolution in favor of creation. Now that Darwinists have the law on their side, they seek to prohibit anything other than Darwinism. A better balance would be to allow all possibilities to be taught. After all, even Darwin was an advocate of pangenesis and other "consensus" theories that have been debunked. Silencing "unproven" theories just because they go against the orthodoxy could merely be seen as another form of "religion".