TelicThoughts member G arago has raised some interesting questions in the comments section, so let me take a stab at them.
1. Can those at Telic Thoughts distance themselves entirely from the IDM, while at the same time accepting that those in the IDM were the persons who formulated the concepts which TT-IDists are working with/assuming?
Yes. The way to demonstrate that such distancing cannot occur is to show that the validity or utility of the ID concepts are entirely dependent on the existence of the IDM. But that is silly. We know that we can contemplate and work with the concept of IC and how it interfaces with biology without the slightest concern about what some school board is up to. The arguments and exploration are not dependent on the existence of that school board.
2. Isn't distancing oneself from the IDM actually another tactic of distancing from creationism or creation science?
Not necessarily. The IDM is, by definition, a socio-political movement. One is thus distancing themselves from the socio-political agenda while trying to explore the concept of ID in an open-ended fashion.
3. How can the IDM have 'ties' with ID – they coined the term?
Coining terms is irrelevant if the concept the terms are designed to capture can exist without the IDM. And they can. For example, Behe coined the term "˜irreducible complexity' to describe the reality of molecular complexes. Many in the IDM view IC as something that renders Darwinian evolution impossible. I don't. But since I also don't think in black-and-white terms, I recognize the utility of the concept as it relates to a design inference. From my perspective, the IDM has only ties to ID in that it primarily draws from the concept for socio-political purposes. Thus, while the IDM may not be able to exist without ID, ID can exist without the IDM.
4. Has trying to be 'persuasive' taken away from the IDM's ability to 'do science' – since the social-political movement of ID in America has gotten ahead of its scientific contribution?
Yes. By embedding the concept of ID in a socio-political movement, this skews the presentation of the concept. Thus, most ID proponents don't approach this issue as investigators looking for clues, because mere clues do not serve the needs of a socio-political movement. Thus, the desire to be "˜persuasive' often means a weak line of evidence must be propped up with rhetoric.
5. How is 'not caring about the IDM at all' an honest or dishonest possibility?
It's an honest possibility. Since the IDM is a socio-political movement, I would have to care about it to the extent that I thought it has a realistic chance of succeeding. But it doesn't have a realistic chance of succeeding. If I cared about every possible outcome from every possible socio-political movement, I would be exhausted and insane.
6. How does ID, even if considered for the moment aside from the IDM, differ from the traditional 'argument from design'?
The traditional argument from design begins with the belief in design and God and tries to prove the existence of God using design. This is quite different from ID101. First, I approach ID from the vantage of a question, not a preconception. Second, because of this, I approach ID in an open-ended manner. Third, I am interested in an investigation, not a proof. Fourth, the dispute is about whether life is a design that stems from intelligence.
7. Why is theology given no place of priority, i.e. no seat at the table of discussion at Telic Thoughts, especially after macht acknowledges that 'ID is rooted in natural theology'?
I can only speak for myself here. I have no problem with theology, but I don't see how it helps the investigation. If theology wants a seat at the table, it need only provide some testable hypotheses that help resolve the issue of life's design.