Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

My impression is that Ken Miller keeps his theism and evolution entirely separate. He denies being a theistic evolutionist in that he finds evolution to be too haphazard to have been guided by God.That said, I think the term "theistic evolutionist", in broad definition, might incorporate everyone from theists who are evoluionists (such as Miller) to those that think God micromanaged evolutions path.Intelligent design has generally been so vaguely defined that everyone from young Earth creationists to theistic evolutionists can incorporate it. I would presume that anyone who believes in a creator God would think that he/she/it had some intelligence involved in the creation.I now repeat my assertion that Michael Behe has the most solid ID position that I know of. I would definitely consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist. He is a mainstream evolutionist trying to document God's fingers in certain details. Not that his efforts have at all held up.MooseDoesn't merit a new message, so I'll insert it here (the wikipedia "Theistic Evolution" page:
Theistic evolution - WikipediaEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added wikipedia link.

Back in message 12 I said: and and I'll now divide the positions into 3 areas - 1)Theistic evolutionists, 2) Intelligent design advocates, and 3) Anti-evolution creationists.Randman, in message 1, seems to be making theistic evolutionists to be a subset of intelligent designers. At least in the case of Behe, I would think it was the opposite - Intelligent design is a subset of theistic evolution.I now repeat my assertion that anyone who believes in a creator God probably thinks that this God had some degree of "intelligent design" involved in the creation process. As such, any variety of creationist (in the broad sense of the term), from deist to theistic evolutionist to old Earth creationist to young Earth creationist probably has at least a little IDist in him or her.Or something like that.Moose