Dembski's question #4 is just perfect

PZ and others have all over the story about Demski's course on Intelligent Design, and its trolling requirement. What struck me as particularly ironic was this question from his 2007 final exam for this course:

3. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch ID’s method(s) of design detection and then show how it/they apply (or might apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Also, indicate how ID differs from creationism and from natural theology. Finally, what would you say to the charge that ID is “pseudoscience”? What would you say to the charge that ID is “religion”?

Dembski, of course, was scheduled to be a witness in the Dover case. He was to be called by the defense as an "expert", to provide exactly this type of testimony. But before he could be deposed in the case, Dembski withdrew as a witness.

Ironic, to say the least.