Did anybody else notice that Dembski actually lists his “participation” in the Dover case in his (15 page!) CV:

That’s beyond laughable.

Expert witness for Thomas More Law Center in Kitzmiller v. Dover case, February
to June 2007.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf

The “2007″ is clearly just a typo, since all the other dates around it are 2005.

P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

This is like saying that any article on how to build a better mousetrap is a refutation of Michael Behe.