The email contains the following:
This epitomises the wrong-headedness of the ID crowd. To suggest that by claiming ID is not science one is ignoring "...the gathering weight of empirical evidence that challenges Darwinism" is a bizarre non sequitur. Whether or not empirical evidence challenging Darwinism is being ignored is neither here nor there in relation to intelligent design. It has no bearing on the scientific validity of ID. The quoted sentences are equivalent to saying:
It's become a mantra for Darwinists to claim that ID isn't science. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that challenges Darwinism.
It's ironic that they're accusing "Darwinists" of what they themselves are doing in these very sentences, but I'd be surprised if the CID isn't aware of this obvious logical fallacy. Perhaps they're using it as a smokescreen in a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that ID is indeed not science. If they continue with such obfuscation they cannot expect to be taken seriously by those who value actual science above the cargo-cult version they espouse.
"It's become a mantra for lawyers to claim that this woman is guilty of a crime. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that her neighbours watch Sky Sports on a Saturday."