I have a fair amount of personal respect for Derb, given his willingness to regularly engage people directly (and privately, via e-mail). I also realize he’s aiming somewhat for humor here, but I fail to see the difference in speciously querying Berlinski on Unkulunkulu and the editing of Dawkins’ comments that Derb in “Expelled” (which I, or for that matter Derb, haven’t seen.)
I’m not all that familiar with Berlinski’s work but it strikes me that “ID types*” and Darwinists spend a lot of time talking past one another about these issues, and that much of the intellectual dishonesty in this debate comes from a refusal to take either side at their intended meaning. This may be perfectly unintentional or the result of frustration, but it seems quite common.
For example, Derb postulates an either/or scenario in Berlinski’s work in order to play off a multi-cultural riff of world religions and comically imply that Berlinski hasn’t given much care to alternatives to Christianity. However, this relies on a completely literal reading of Genesis, something few Christians would sanction as the basis for a scientific rational for understanding what happened. The essence of any reference to Genesis in a scientific context is to that of a Creator. Perhaps Berlinski tries to draw in other inferences from Genesis (the birds/reptiles order is interesting, given the recent discoveries of dinosaur/chicken relationships 
and those might be interesting from a theological and literary perspective, but the essence of Genesis is that God created life in a way that is beyond our ken.
So, while Derb has a bit of fun drawing in the cornucopia of world religions, the essential conflict between created and chance life is obscured. Getting to the heart of that may not be as much fun (and is immensely difficult, given the chasm between metaphysics and science – which Derb has always correctly pointed out) but it might provide more room for some understanding and carve out some common ground or at least some common understandings.
*Creationist may be technically accurate, since that refers to anyone who believes the material universe is the product of some intelligence, but as Derb uses it pejoritatively, like an epithet, I prefer the ID term – which is more generic in polite usage.
