After the fiasco of my previous thread, I am shifting here to present my thoughts.
My first suggestion is to drop the ID reference and substitute intelligent laws in its place. This unhooks discussion from the poisoned well of previous theological and political debate where ID has an established meaning that is problematic to the pursuit of truth. Use of the word design has been problematic as well, with no consensus of what design is or what it means.
Laws on the other hand is specific. There should be little ambiguity as to what is being spoken of when laws of nature/science are invoked. Laws of nature/science exist. The sciences are based on these laws. Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should seek to establish the source and chronology of these laws and determine whether the laws derive from an intelligent source or not.
The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence. Speculations to put a face on this intelligence would offer nothing to the discussion. Primal intelligence IS or IS NOT would be the only issue on the table.
Should Intelligent Laws ever be properly pursued and it be resolved likely that intelligence is primal, then of course the many competitors for putting a face on that intelligence can have at it. Jehovah, Allah, super-dimensional pin-ball players causing 3 dimensional event horizons on fourth dimensional black holes, etc.. Arguing those choices are moot unless it is first established that intelligence is or is not at the root of it all.
Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should begin at the beginning. Science should be utilized to establish a chronology for laws of nature/science. In other words, how old are the laws? Science should be utilized to establish whether the laws are eternal and unchanging. Are laws front-end fact or do laws evolve with a changing universe? Science should take these questions as far as they can be taken with observation and statistical inference.
This is an opening thought. A name change seems to be a necessity if anyone ever expects to take the discussion away from political intrigue and into serious pursuit of truth.
The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.