The reason so many here on FR associate ID with CS is that the ID folks constantly seem to be relying on the bible or the Hebrew version of creation. They forget they are supposed to (wink) keep the two separate for now.
I have been posting Native American creation stories to make this point. The comments I get back most often relate to the deficiencies of these stories in relation to the bible version. In other words, ID (which otherwise could include anything from Erich Von Daniken's space aliens to Old Man Coyote) really is a cover for the biblical version of creation because that's what the proponents are really pushing.
Check out the ID websites and see how many Old Man Coyote stories you find vs. biblical quotations.
Because many here might not see these stories anywhere else, here is another example.
In the beginning, Raven was born out of the darkness. Weak, unknowing of himself or his purpose, he set out to learn more about the area where he was walking. He felt trees, plants, and grass. He thought about such things and soon realized that he was the Raven Father, Creator of All Life. He gathered strength and flew out of the darkness and found new land, called the earth. Raven wanted living things to be on the earth, so he made plants.
One day, Raven was flying overhead and saw a giant peapod, and out came a man who was the first Eskimo. Father Raven fed the man, creating caribou and musk oxen for him to eat. Father Raven did this for many days, all the while teaching the man to respect his fellow creatures. A woman was soon created for the man, and Raven taught the pair to make clothing, build homes, and make a canoe. The two became parents. Other men came from the peapods, and Raven fed and taught them too. When they were ready, Raven made women for these men and they, too, became parents. Soon the earth had many children.
I want to thank you, Coyoteman, for posting the creation myths of other cultures. In all the examples you give, we see the human mind struggling to understand and articulate the human condition, to make intelligible what are in fact universal human experiences.
Within the Western cultural tradition, our "creation myth" is Genesis. So it should come as no surprise that people would cite its language in order to make intelligible certain questions and issues because this is a shared language with other persons of that tradition. But that is not the same thing as saying that ID is religiously motivated.
Unless you want to say that the pursuit of understanding of what constitutes the overall "system" in which discrete events in nature take place is somehow to be equated with religiosity. The "reductive" approach of materialist science looks only at the discrete events themselves, not at the overarching context in which they occur. ID is saying that the meaning of the events cannot be fully grasped without regard to the system in which they occur. It is in this respect that ID is "non-reductive" in its approach.
At least, that is my take on this issue. FWIW.
Wolf
