It's an odd way to characterize a disagreement between critics of philosophical materialism over how best to approach the relationship between science, theology, and philosophy. I was under the impression that this was an open question over which Christians of good will could disagree.
I have no idea what it means to "disown ID," as if it were a prodigal son or unfaithful spouse. Since I never "owned" ID, I'm not sure how I can "disown" it.
Also on Dembski's blog are these ugly comments by Denyse O'Leary:
Honestly, Beckwith disowning ID reminds me of a guy divorcing his wife ten years after she’s run off with the plumber. The question isn’t “Why, Frankie, why?” but “Why, frankly, why?”.
Last I heard from Beckwith, he was defending John Lilley’s scorched earth campaign against the academic deans at Baylor (deans 1, scorched earth 0, as I recall - even at dysfunctional Baylor, there is some stuff you just can’t do).
My take is that some philosophy types will always hate ID because it asserts the priority of evidence over theory.
Ignoring the tasteless infidelity illustration, Denyse is simply mistaken that I defended injustice in the case of the unprincipled actions of Dr. Lilley. What I actually did suggest to Bill and Denyse is modesty and restraint prior to the acquisition of all the facts. To get a feel for my comments at the time, read Densye's blog entry which is followed by comments by me, Bill, Denyse, and my Baylor colleague Alexander Pruss.
Frankly, it is just plain weird to think of questioning ID and its relationship to the Christian worldview as some kind of flirtation with apostacy, as Bill and Denyse seem to be doing.
When the Santa Clara Law Review article is available, I will post a link to it.