Let's get back to the main point. Whether or not you think Dembski's work is correct, have the advocates of intelligent design suffered unjustified, inquisitorial attacks by at least some of their opponents? I wish I had my copy of The Design Revolution on hand, but Dembski says that scientists who come out in favor of design have their scientific careers attacked and potentially ruined, and he knows some who were dismissed from research positions when they were "outed." Even if you think that Dembski's arguments are bad or that Darwinism is true, is there something wrong with allowing a fair hearing to the attempt bring design into a scientific context? The questions posed by Intelligent Design are the questions that we would all like answered, questions that affect us existentially. If it really is wrong, shouldn't it die a natural death instead of having people working so hard to kill it? And can anyone complain about Dembski's tactics if the tactics used against him and his cohorts are what they seem to be? That is the point behind my linking to the Beckwith post on Right Reason.
Throwing design positions out of court a priori in virtue of some definition of science (and hence pseudoscience) weakens any attempt that anyone might make to appeal to the results of science as a basis for physicalism. Here's why. If science by definition must always come up with properly physicalist solutions to, let us say, the problem of mind, then the fact that all neuroscientific theories "support" physicalism will be tautological. Of course they are physicalistic, otherwise they wouldn't be science. To say that the neuroscientific evidence supports X is to imply that it could have supported Y, but didn't. But if it couldn't have supported Y no matter what, then it really lends no support to X.