For what it's worth I think there's an alternative explanation for the behavior you described in your Der Spiegle piece. Considering the amount of flak, misrepresentation, and academic persecution Dembski, ID theorists, and critics of Darwinism have faced I can understand the treatment you received or at least as you perceived it (I'd say perception plays a part in your and Casety Luskin's accounts of that day).

If it were possible to put ourselves in your shoes of 4 years ago we'd probably see the stiff treatment. And if it were possible to put ourselves in Luskin's and Dembski's shoes we'd probably see things as they do (or did). I don't think either side is completely wrong on this one.

A last word on "misrepresentation". I made mention of this in Dembski's blog. What I find interesting in this debate is the media's role. On the whole, my impression is that many in the media aren't up to snuff on either ID or Darwinism. It's not necessarily the media's fault, either. There's too much to cover, the educational background necessary for a journalism degree doesn't cover key aspects of the debate (science, philosophy, & critical thinking), the need to entertain the viewer (or reader) in order to keep his/her attention, and the human tendency to choose a side one already agrees with all kind of skew the coverage in my opinion. There are other factors, of course, but the point is that I think the media (as well layman on both sides of the issue) need to consider the issues I listed before venturing far into the fray.

Otherwise, everything gets swallowed up in a sea of shitty emotions.