[dmz]

In short, yes I do. God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.

It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.

[Publius6961]

In short, yes I do. God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.
Then the problem might be with you, not the concept. I have no need for things to be always done "my way" or to have the final word. Alternatives are simply that.

It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.
No it is not. Its usefulness is simply to keep the dead horse present to keep beating on.
Science routinely accepts the certainty of uncertainty and is perfectly capable of working around it. As the classic example I remind you of Schroedinger's cat.

Insistence on identifying the creator is simply the need to have a straw man.

[DC Bound]

God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.

Atheism is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when evolution is discussed. Yet they manage to teach it without talking about atheism. ID is about science, just like evolution is about science. The theological ramifications are left for the individual to decide.