Admittedly I haven't studied ID claims and the responses to them in all too great detail as yet. I do see references quite often to how, for example, many of Behe's initial examples of Irreducible Complexity, "have since been explained via random mutation and natural selection". I presume the theories of Dembski have been addressed in similar ways as well.
I was wondering how the proposed rebuttals have been handled by these two, and whether there is a general pattern.
Do they in general DISMISS the rebuttals, and insist that their initial examples or theories remain valid because something was misunderstood? Or maybe they refine their argumentation to illustrate that the "misunderstandings" were partly their fault, and argue that a better explanation of the same examples refutes the initial criticism?
Or do they, maybe reluctantly, admit that the criticism is entirely valid, and as a response come up with OTHER examples/theories to replace the rebutted ones?
I guess the type of reaction can tell quite a bit about underlying motivations. Was the DATA more important in the ideas they developed, or the PARADIGM they possibly started from and tried to hold up via data collected especially for that purpose?