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?