This is science?
This is science? (There is very good stuff on the second law at the beginning—the nonsense comes near the end.)
Or asked differently, is religious apologetics couched in scientific language (ID) less scientific, (or, if you prefer, more unscientific) than untestable, secular mental-masturbations couched in scientific language?
I really do not see the difference. Now, I have no problem with either ID seminars or "Boltzmann Brain" seminars. I would gladly attend either one because provocative seminars are always fun and they have a place in the academy. I would, however, be equally reluctant to label either as science.