[narby]

It seems to me that a person to whom rationality and the scientific method were important would make an effort to distinguish between people who actually support ID, which means supporting the premise that "evolution occured, but that some intelligence directed it," and creationists.

Genuine IDers, as opposed to closet creationists are as rare as hens teeth. The logical assumption is that anyone claiming support for "ID", is actually a Biblical creationist. Even if they claim otherwise.

As a proponent of the premise that "evolution occurred, but that some intelligence directed it," that seems to me an important distinction.

Then your gripe should be with creationists who have stolen the disguise of ID. I'll watch to see whether you spend your time correcting them from here on out.

[dsc]

"Genuine IDers, as opposed to closet creationists are as rare as hens teeth."

I know a bunch, and I have no reason to think that's special.

"Then your gripe should be with creationists who have stolen the disguise of ID."

I think I also have a legitimate gripe with people who say things like, "When the creationists and IDers actually figure out what scientific inquiry is and do some..."

There you differentiate between creationists and ID proponents, but assume (incorrectly) that the latter reject science.

"I'll watch to see whether you spend your time correcting them from here on out."

I'm not going to make it a crusade, but if I see someone claiming to be an ID proponent while rejecting the process of evolution, I may be motivated to comment.

[VadeRetro]

Genuine IDers, as opposed to closet creationists are as rare as hens teeth.

Claimants to this distinction usually miserably fail examination. One in particular I believe used only supporting antievolution quotes from Gish, Lubenow, and Menton.