This article in WIRED magazine makes me shake my head. Scientists can have SUCH flabby rhetorical muscles. These ID shills are using a classic Cartesian argument. Instead of the "THEY'RE WRONG"(true, but the political audience can't understand that technically) and "WE HAVE MORE BELIEVERS"(not really, if you consider the number of religious mystics who are willing to ignore ANY material evidence that stands in their way) arguments, turn the argument against itself. "Teach the controversy," but teach it IN A DIFFERENT CLASS. Create a special philosophy course that explains the differences in how different approaches occur. Science is peer reviewed and depends upon a specific, material methodology. The ID folks are depending upon seventeenth century philosophy that foregrounds logic and reasoning (no empiricism need apply) in the journey towards Bible-based evangelical christianity. Of course, you now have five centuries of philosophy between these two poles to show why ID is a good idea and why it isn't science.
Seems that the Doheny-Farina article describes how documentation (in this case, a business plan) is used to guide worker action towards a larger goal. The Paradis article seems to describe documentation as a way of BOTH guiding workers and of determining how people fit in with technology (in this case, studguns).