Ogre versus Troll: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution?

A blogging-friend, who goes by the name of Ogre MkV, is debating another blogger, JoeG, on the topic: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution? Ogre's opening statement is up now at Cassandra's Tears:

Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution (Support Opening)

Having read that, I wanted to get some thoughts down before I read JoeG's response.

1) Ogre MKV makes a strong case that ID is anti-evolution by any reasonable definition. He builds a case that is it first necessary to define intelligent design and what it supports, and then goes on to cite conflicting definitions, all of which are anti-evolution.

2) Of the many people I have encountered via the internet, JoeG may well be the nastiest (thus the "Troll"). The more I think about it, the more I wonder what Ogre was thinking when he agreed to this debate. I will try to keep an open mind about what JoeG might say, but ... I've encountered him before at Uncommon Descent (where he is moderated) and his own blog (where he is vitriolic), and ... I expect more nastiness.

[ ... time passes ...]

And now I'm back from reading JoeG's opening statement, which was rather disappointing, but at least it maintained civility. The post consists primarily of long quotes of things other people (Wells, Behe, Dembski, etc.) say about ID, and winds up saying that ID has little to say about pretty much all aspects of evolutionary theory ... except the "blind watchmaker thesis". The blind watchmaker is a favorite topic that JoeG brings up often, and always as an argument against evolution. Maybe JoeG does not understand what "anti" means? (Ogre thought of that too).

Ogre MkV has cross-posted JoeG's opening statement. I can't actually recommend it, but there it is.

Heavy Hand of the Koch Brothers

Just this quick note for a BUSY election day. Cognitive Dissidence reports some excellent detective work on how the Koch brothers are operating behind the scenes in Wisconsin. Check it out, and go vote. Maybe not in that order.
*

Madison as Hell

"An activist judge stubbornly insists that Wisconsin's legal system must be obeyed, even if Republicans disagree with it."

Or see it at Colbert Nation.

Wisconsin's Tuesday non-partisan elections are turning out to be anything but. The intensity and nastiness of 3rd party television advertising cannot be understated. I'm getting really tired of one sided calling the other stupid, ignorant, dirty, rabid, wicked, sleezy, anti-American, Communist, [re]tards, {inset ad hominem here}, scum, more ad hominem, disgusting, cruel, thug*, brutes, etc. etc..** Opinions aside, this language is uncalled for in any civilized discussion. If you cannot be bothered to think of an opponent as a real, thinking person with honest opinions, then you may not be qualified to be part of a civilized discussion.

* There seems to be a particular agenda to push this word, because it is showing up everywhere. It ain't random!

** These words culled from the comments at a site with decidedly one-sided opinions, but I'm pretty sure there are people on both sides speaking of/to each other like this.