This keeps getting funnier. In this comment on his own blog, he says the following about the Wedge Document:

Cody, you are quoting from various parts of the "wedge document" and so forth. These are documents that we, including DI, do not necessarily agree with. Meaning, we have seen certain errors with intelligent design in the past and with promoting it and have worked to change those errors so we can stay honest. Honesty, something evolutionists have none of.

How do you top that punchline? While claiming that "evolutionists" have no honesty, he says with a straight face that the DI doesn't necessarily agree with the Wedge Document. Except that the Wedge Document was written by the DI. They don't necessarily agree with their own mission statements and stated goals? And we're the dishonest ones? Folks, you can't even begin to parody this - the reality is funnier than anything I could invent.

As for the claim that they've changed the way they promote ID so they can "stay honest", is there anyone with an IQ in double digits who would fall for that line? He seriously expects someone to believe that all that religious stuff they were saying before, they didn't really mean it. And the fact that the old position was damaging to them in court and the new position, conveniently, is not is purely coincidental. No, no, this was all an honest mistake.

In 1998, you see, they thought that their goal was to replace materialistic naturalism with a theistic science more consonant with Christian beliefs. Back then they were just sure that they were trying to "affirm the reality of God". In fact, they publicly referred to themselves as "theistic realists", in opposition to "methodological naturalists." But now they no longer think that this is their goal. All that talk of a theistic revolution, renewing America's Christian culture and reaffirming its Christian roots, that was an error. They didn't really mean it.

Oh, one more problem with this claim: the DI has actually reaffirmed the statements in the Wedge Document. In a response on their webpage to criticism of the Wedge Document, the DI says:

"In what follows we cite and discuss the document's major points and offending passages, none of which support the claims that our opponents have made about us, and all of which we continue to affirm."

Included in the passages they discuss are the ones we are using for evidence that the DI is now covering up the fact that they are a conservative Christian thinktank for PR purposes. All of this reminds me of Steve Reuland's brilliant list of paraphrases of ID positions in No Free Hunch, the first of which is:

"ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree."

Update: Wow, this guy is entering the rarified territory of DaveScot - he's actually deleting his own comments now. He deleted the comment that said that the DI didn't necessarily support their own published statements; apparently, Chen doesn't support his own published statements either, so this one will disappear down the memory hole. Except that it's already been quoted in other comments and here. Bloody hilarious. Talk about ducking right into the punch. Trevor Berbick would be in awe of this performance.