i agree with you for the most part ... but with one important caveat.  you said that id was a subset of creationism.  don't you think it's more fair to say that creationism is a subset of ID, since all creationists believe in intelligent design of necessity, but believers in ID need not believe in God?  Theistic creationism is one of the potential identities for the designer, but not the only one  and is therefore relevent.
by analogy, punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are alternative descriptions of the broader "theory of evolution"  but both are relevent in a discussion of the theory.  wouldn't you see that both theistic and non-theistic potential designers are relevent to ID?   21:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)