I think the key point has already been summed up by Crash. The Creationism movement puts its efforts into PR instead of research, and this new blog is just one more item of PR. With the failure of traditional Creationism to make inroads in either the education or science arenas, the focus has changed to ID. But instead of complaining that scientists do not take ID seriously they should instead be funding ID research to produce the evidence necessary to force the mainstream scientific community to take them seriously.
But they don't and won't, and that's because there are sufficient numbers of Creationists, whether they say so publicly or not, who understand that the scientific support just isn't there, and never will be. Without any possibility of genuine scientific support they understand that their only chance is PR, directed both internally at the faithful, who will apparently believe anything, and externally at the public in order to persuade as many as possibility that there's a genuine debate taking place within the halls of science.
If there were a true scientific debate taking place then we would find it in the technical journals and in the popular science periodicals. The only group claiming there's a debate is evangelical Christians. If it were truly a case of conflicting scientific theories then the complaints would be coming from scientific rather than religious organizations. In other words, not only is this new blog wrong in claiming media bias, Creationists in general are wrong (lying is a more accurate characterization) in claiming there's a scientific debate taking place. Anyone who doubts this is a religious issue need only spend a little time here watching the less experienced Creationists talk about God and the Bible in threads that are strictly about science.
It took a long time for the evangelical community to recognize that backing ridiculous claims like the shrinking sun or the vapor canopy had done irreparable harm to faith among a new generation of Christians excited by science, and so they've shifted horses to ID. But though ID doesn't propose theories that ignore evidence or are blatantly contradicted by it, it is nonetheless just as impoverished scientifically. I suspect ID will run its course much more quickly than traditional Creationism and that within a decade there will be a new favorite theory of Creationists.
This is not a battle that will ever be won by either side. Anyone who lives in the southern US understands the strength and staying power of the evangelical community. They're not going away. And science isn't going away, either. Genuine inroads into science aren't possible, but evangelicals can't give up because of the perceived threat to faith. As long as they can convince a sizable portion of the public that they're right (and they're pretty successful at that - polls indicate that many in the US believe the earth is young and evolution is wrong) then they can consider themselves successful.
Science has a much tougher row to hoe than Creationism. To recruit a new Creationist needs only ignorance, while science requires a willingness to work and study for years.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2