Casey’s rhetoric is interesting in that he starts by hinting at a common descent argument (back to God) between the outboard motor structure of the flagellum and the rotary outboard motor of humans, but then argues that the biological version may be better for certain medical purposes that can be put to work via nanotechnology (as ‘nanobots’).

All of this fine, and in fact should be stressed more in ID defences. However, the role of human intelligence in constructing the actual nanobots out of the natural flagella should not be underestimated. It would be a mistake to hear what Casey is saying as implying that somehow natural forms are inherently superior to artificial forms, just because the natural version of the flagellum works well for medical purposes. An additional layer of design is necessary to construct the appropriate nanobots, and that does not happen in the wild. In other words, less stress should be placed on the superiority of natural design and more on how natural design can be redeployed to serve human ends, which in turn could be understood as evidence for at least some overlap in how human and divine intelligence work.

Almost all of the good ones are there.

-Fallacy by authority.
-Calling ID a God of gaps or argument from ignorance,
-Saying there are no peer reviewed papers
-claiming Darwin got it all right
-saying ID is not science because mostly Christians believe and advocate it
(notice that the contrary is not true: that IDists do not argue that Darwinism is not science because it is largely advocated by atheists)

-he misrepresent the Dover case
-he misrepresents Meyer’s paper
-he claims the controversy is manufactured by political and religious interests and not scientific ones

-and he gives a straw man version ID representing it as a dead psudo-theory that has already been falsified and proven unsound etc.

Everything was in this paper except for just ignoring and dismissing ID, refusing to even discuss it solely on the basis of it being “creationism”.