Intelligent Design proponents David DeWolf, John West, Casey Luskin and Jonathan Witt talk to a reporter about their new book on the Kitzmiller case, here. Sample:

Judge Jones’ rejection of intelligent design sprang from his willingness to go beyond the facts of the case and attempt to decide an important scientific debate by judicial decree. Unfortunately, in his zeal to decide the validity of intelligent design for everyone else, Judge Jones ended up attacking a straw man. As we document in our book, his opinion is filled with distortions and basic errors of fact. For example, he asserts that intelligent design scientists don’t published peer-reviewed scholarship, which is patently false.

Sorry, but this is not “an important scientific debate.” It all comes down to the point I hammered at in my response to George Gilder: That the I.D. people are claiming a place at science’s table, without having done any science. That just won’t fly. You can’t claim to be one side in “an important scientific debate” if you don’t have any results to offer.

On the matter of peer-reviewed scholarship, though there are some gray areas (to many ID-ers, the word “peer” apparently means another ID-er), Judge Jones has way the better of the argument. TalkOrigins has the details. From which, on that main point:

The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.