I'm amazed how utter rubbish the 2nd point in particular is; it deliberately misconstrues natural selection as being undirected (and thus to imply it is effectively random) when in reality it is directed in terms of the sequence consequences in evolution, but not the action (i.e. natural selection will - within certain boundaries such as sexual selection - result in the most effective mutations for survival being perpetuated, but it is not directed in the sense of some governing hand selecting mutations to preserve). It's a classic tactic from ID, though; probably the biggest misportrayal of evolution that can be made is to portray it as an entirely random process (whereas Id effectively proposes every animal has been shaped by some designer to work perfectly), when in reality it is constrained by survival issues that create an implicit move to improve animals (ID would seek to portray the 'improvement' in animals such as eyesight as a singular directed action, rather than the consequence of mutations improving eyesight resulting in increased survival and thus greater reproduction and offspring).
The use of 'purposeless' also belies the attempt to place some divine will into the process of life; there is no need for natural selection to have a 'purpose', it's simply the combined effects of an environment upon it's inhabitants. Every lifeform has a basic purpose of surviving and reproducing; the 'purpose' of natural selection is to represent as a logical concept how the animals' physiological adaptations help or hinder it's survival and thus reproduction and spreading of genes.
Unpredictable is, of course, completely wrong. Mutations are, IIRC, essentially unpredictable. Natural selection is very predictable - the better adapted an organism is, the more likely it is to survive and reproduce. If a bat can echolocate 100m further than another bat, then the first bat has a greater chance of finding food and thus living longer. Very simple concept.
Plus it mentions ancient beliefs of the designed world, but neglects to mention that they came from theistic cultures (thus feeding into biblical creation myth) and before the discovery of the bulk of the fossil record (any fossils of dinosaurs, etc, would be regarded as ancient mythical monsters); moreso, whilst the concept of some designer of the world has existed since prehistoric times(before scientific exploration), there can be no doubt the movement to override established science (evolution) is funded by biblical fundamentalists (who provide most of the Discovery institutes funding... although, interestingly, a major funder is apparently Bill Gates - EDIT; apparently restricted to some other programme seperate from Id, though - something to do with regional transportation).
The use of 'Darwinists' is interesting, too; I presume the intention is to give the impression of scientists as being members of some 'cult' around Darwin, rather than acknowledge the decades of work upon evolutionary theory; to regress and ignore the work done since 1859 by focusing upon the Darwins original idea and not the myriad of supporting evidence and additional work.
But don't get me started on ID.......the blatant lies and agendas behind it infuriate me, it serves no purpose than to hold back human and cultural development in order to prepare it for someones personal theology, regardless of how devoid of merit that theology is.
NB: I note even their own definition does not define what 'features of the universe' were created, how they were created, who the creator was, how the creator came to be, etc.
