I know about Behe, but I want to hear from the ID proponents themselves, on FR and in the school boards, that they accept the facto evolution if not natural selection, and that they accept the geologic timeline of mainstream science.
In short, I want them to tell me what it is that they want taught, not just that they have a technical dispute with a particular theory. I am asking them to affirm those things that ID shares with mainstream science.
According to the Discovery Institute's website (they're the principal propaganda arm of the ID movement) their whole "theory" is that ID is a "better" explanation than evolution. This seems to accept that evolution is, after all, a viable explanation. But their "explanation," they say, is better.
One thing they don't share with mainstream science is an appreciation of Occam's Razor. Also, they appear to have no concern for even pretending they have a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. In other words, they don't have even the beginnings of a science. Nor do they care.