Thinking about it, when you combine together the testimony of the defense's expert witnesses in the Dover "intelligent design" trial, what you get is a pretty weak statement, one that runs something like this:
Intelligent design is science, but only if you change the definition of science from the one that scientists actually recognize to one that admits of the possibility of the supernatural. The accepted definition of science needs to be expanded, to allow radical new theories like intelligent design a chance to become accepted, but when you do expand the definition you also allow discarded old theories, like astrology, to be considered to be science. As a science, intelligent design does not explain the mechanism by which design happened, nor does it identify who the designer is or tell you anything about the designer, nor does it get involved with proving that design actually took place. Instead, intelligent design is a scientific theory because it recognizes that design has happened wherever there are instances where design is perceived in a mechanism having an apparent purpose. Once that purpose has been seen, and design has been recognized, intelligent design has nothing more to say about it, except that it is obvious that the mechanism has been designed. But above all, intelligent design is a science because Darwinian evolutionary theory has gaps in it and cannot explain absolutely everything about evolution and speciation. Those gaps are the ultimate proof that intelligent design is a science.
That's about the sum total of it.
[Cross posted to unfutz, also an earlier version of this was posted to comments on Pharyngula]