In his keynote address at a recent Intelligent Design (ID) conference at Biola University, ID leader William Dembski began by quoting “a well-known ID sympathizer” whom he had asked to assess the current state of the ID movement. Dembski explained that he had asked because, “after some initial enthusiasm on his part three years ago, his interest seemed to have flagged” (Dembski 2002). The sympathizer replied that

Those of us who have been following the ID or “Wedge” movement since it coalesced around point man Philip Johnson during the early 1990s reached much the same assessment of its arguments years ago. In something of an understatement, Dembski told his supporters (the conference was closed to critical observers) that “the scientific research part of ID” was “lagging behind” its cultural penetration. He noted that there are only “a handful of academics and independent researchers” currently doing any work on the scholarly side of ID, and offered some suggestions to try to rally his troops (Dembski 2002). We will have to wait to see if anything comes of this call, but judging from ID's track record, it seems unlikely. This chapter is a look back at nearly a decade and a half of repetitious, imprecise, immodest, and unsatisfactory arguments.