Could you find a more pathetic editorial "justifying" Intelligent Design?
I.D., however, is a claim that it is far more reasonable to believe life to be designed by an intelligence than to have occurred without purpose...
Meaning: I personally find more comfort in the idea that some omnipotent designer gave me a purpose even though many others are capable of finding their own purpose without the "designer" crutch, therefore evolution can't possibly be true;
...and presents evidence not based on faith to back it up.
Meaning: But only the ID activists know about the evidence so you'll have to trust us for now;
We know when objects are designed. I.D. attempts to quantify how we know this and then apply it to biology.
Meaning: Actually, we have no such knowledge that stands up to testing and have never been able to apply it to biology in any but the vaguest of terms, but if we repeat this enough we figure you'll buy it (unless you're an evolutionist who asks questions);
The results are persuasive, so persuasive that only blind faith can keep one from accepting that life has been purposely designed.
Meaning: We have to use "persuasive" twice because we actually have nothing but rhetoric to offer;
We suspect that I.D. will eventually prevail over the views of the accidentalists who now seem to control things in academia and in our courts.
Meaning: I.D. is so self-evident to those of us who already buy into it that the only reason it hasn't replaced evolution is all those academics and "activist" judges who don't accept our word on the subject.
ID can only succeed if it is legislated into existence.