See my home page and judge for yourself whether these views are compatible with my "personal religion." You should have noted by now that I consider the word "supernatural" to be arbitrary. Science can explain anything in "natural" terms, but that does not change the nature of the object described. For things to revert to a so-called "natural" state the elements would have to disintegrate into NOTHING.
"ID is very much compatible with the views of those who espouse an almighty Creator," Fester Chugabrew.
"Are these views compatible with your personal religion? ..." js1138 then quotes Denton and Behe.
I followed the citation on Denton and Behe. I've only recently become slightly familiar with Denton. His position seems to be that the universe was fine tuned, to include evolution. Behe was simply reducing the scope of his discussion to what he considers to be a lack of Darwinian mechanisms at the biochemical level.
You can find a discussion of Denton's views by Intelligent Design proponents (including Behe) at:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm
None of these authors discuss religion nearly as much as does Richard Dawkins. They are content to discuss science without mentioning religion. They do not wear theism on their sleeve as Richard Dawkins wears his atheism. Nevertheless, in my opinion Fester's is right when he writes:
"ID is very much compatible with the views of those who espouse an almighty Creator," Fester Chugabrew.
Comment to js1138. You've used the exact same quotes of Denton and Behe twice (at least) in this thread and also yesterday in discussing Richard Dawkins' Illusion of Design. Surely, you don't intend to live up to your Tagline. Please, get some new material! :)