You state that Dembski provides readers with "pseudo-scientific" arguments - and you proceed to make some very interesting observations about divine intervention - but you haven't given examples of the ways in which you found the *science* of his arguments to be weak. As a potential purchaser of the book, I would find more detail on this point helpful.
Concerning the 'snag' within the Christian gospel which you explain, I would be very interested to engage in further discussion. For now, let me simply ask a couple of questions:
1) You say that "belief in intelligent design rules out the need for the miracles of divine incarnation and bodily resurrection that are essential to the Gospel story". I can agree that these miracles are essential to the Gospel story but I cannot see why an infinitely intelligently designed world *necessarily* rules out the need for these miracles. Is it not (in strictly logical terms at very least) possible that God's purpose in creating would be best accomplished in a world in which he *would* need to intervene? Taking this slightly further, The Christian gospel portrays God, uniquely, as personal and relational in his character and in what he has created: The three persons of the trinity *relate* with one another and with the world that God has created.
Allow me an attempt at an illustration (flawed though any illustration is bound to be): The best, most enjoyable computer game that a programmer could construct would emphatically *not* be one which, once 'playing' would require no manoeuvring, no strategising and no trigger-pulling from the 'player'. Such a 'game' would reduce the 'player' to a 'viewer' and turn the 'game' into a barely enjoyable computerised simulation. Now we are not mere characters in a make-believe computer game world; the point is rather that the best, most 'intelligently designed' computer game, by definition and by deliberate design, requires ongoing intervention from its designer (or other game players in the case of this illustration). Is it not possible that our world is similar in this regard?
2) You further state that "belief in a creator who builds into creation original sin, eternal punishment and the need for salvation rules out the possibility of belief that the original design was the product of an omnipotent and omniscient intelligence in the first place." Could you please expand on this? What exactly do you mean? If you mean that you do not *understand* how the possibility of sin, punishment and salvation could have deliberately been part of God's design, perhaps I can - although I won't indulge here - attempt some Biblical suggestions as to why. If you mean that you are simply not prepared to accept any explanations for how this might be the case, I'm afraid I'm not about to try to force you to!
If the tone of this email comes across as so strong as to be offensive or so calm as to be patronising, I do apologise. I do not intend to offend you or mock you but to engage in a serious and hopefully mutually stimulating and enlightening discussion.