Summations Only

I don't think that is even true.It is not the concept that people object to.The objection

• is to the dishonest claim that ID is science, when thus far we have seen only philosophy;
• is to the dishonest political maneuvering, trying to get religion into the science class by misrepresenting what ID is;
• is to the dishonest "teach the controversy" nonsense, when there is no scientific controversy.

I don't have a problem with that, and I suspect that most scientists would not have a problem with that. But don't claim it is science, unless and until you have a substantial body of scientific ID research to back that up. If they ever do come up with genuine credible evidence, scientists will take notice.

There is no sign of love between ID proponents and theistic evolutionists.

I have not posted much in this thread. But I'll summarize my position anyway.Deism is clearly not the same as atheism. Roughly speaking, deism is theism without the crazy. It is a respected position, one that is reasonably well respected by many theists and many atheists.Many scientists who are Christian have beliefs that are close to those of the deist. That is, they take God as having created the cosmos, and as getting it right from the start so that he did not have to continually interfere. They usually believe a little than vanilla deism. It can perhaps be described as deism plus Jesus.For myself, I don't have a problem with deists, theists, etc, as long as they avoid trying to impose their beliefs on others. That is to say, I respect freedom of thought.