George Murphy noted recently that, in many religion- science circles, ASA is seen as a group of obscurantists. I don't agree that we do, not even those in ASA who like what Phil is saying. What ID people want is a full, open, honest discussion of the assumptions underlying naturalistic science.
Scientists have such discussions now and then about the core assumptions of their disciplines.
THere is another reason, IMO, why ASAers are often seen by more mainstream people as obscurantists. That is, there is a reason in addition to the reason that we believe that truth and scientific truth claims are not always identical. Those of us in ASA whose God isn't quite so easily identified as the process of evolution ought to be proud to be obscurantists, we ought to be proud of holding that the natural order ain't all there is.