Can we clarify what you may or may not be wrong about? Behe is an IDist. He accepts common decent. It might appear that you were saying IDists don't accept common decent. One example would make you technically wrong.
However, ID Man might be saying that the "movement" as a whole isn't religious or somesuch. The general statement of the discovery institute would show him to be wrong with exceptions.
You were asked for a clarification of your position. It can be as short as the response in post 67.
The central point seems to be: Is ID a form of creationism only if ALL the proponents are creationists? If a few are, is it creationism; if only a few are NOT creationists is it creationism?
You dispute the story of Jones' resignation. If it is true would that make the ID movement creationist? I didn't say that it was true but IF it was would that settle the issue?
Please respond with simple answers to these questions. Then we can do some fact checking.
I think PaulK's clarification could use a bit more too. He is saying, in my interpretion: No, it doesn't take all of them to make it a creationist movement just a lot of them. He is going on, not individual views, but what the organizations have stated and how they have behaved to one with discenting views.
However, I don't remember what references he has posted to support what he is saying.
Both (all) of you. Before arguing about IS, ISN'T, IS. Let's try to agree on what criteria we would use to determine which is correct.
So far there seem to be these things to choose from:
Proportion of those in the movement that have a particular view. Writen statments of the organizations. Behavior of organizations to those who disagree with creationism.
Are those the only criteria? Do we all agree they are useful in settling the question? How would you use them to settle it?
Ok, ID Man, do you agree with this method of settling things?
If an ID organization (or prominent member) uses common descent as a filter to remove some individuals does that suggest that the movement is trying to support a basic creationist belief?
Are we perhaps using different definitions of creationist?
We have used OEC and YEC to separate different types of creationists before? OEC'ers are mostly taken as being creationists even if they don't believe in a 6 day creation and flood. ID Man, are they still creationists?
They are noting what PaulK has said. Then asking ID Man about them.
It seems to me that it is hard to settle the issue the way things are going. I'm suggesting that we agree (without worrying about what facts there are ) just what we would consider reasons for and against the ID movement being creationist. As we all know there are many definitions of the word creationist. If we don't agree on one then we will continue to argue past each other.