For those who didn't see the post, the emails were completely sanitized--there was no way to identify the person with whom I corresponded. There was no legal issue here, but as a courtesy I will honor his request.
As far as I know, only one comment came into that short-lived post-- which I'll reproduce here since the comment is now homeless:
David, you wrote:However, I am not claiming to test ID as a theory, because I don't believe it is possible, given that I don’t believe ID is science.
Why do you consider yourself an IDer? An IDer is not simply one who believes in creation by God. Kenneth Miller claims to believe this too. An IDer believes there are testable claims. BTW, the truth of the last sentence is not determined by the extent of actual testing. That is a separate issue and clearly important. But I thought you understood that IDers make empirical claims that are inconsistent with your belief that ID is not science. I do not understand why you ever thought you were an IDer.
William Bradford Homepage
William: I guess I don't care whether or not I am entitled to wear the label "IDer." I must say, I was not aware that to be an official IDer one had to, as you stated, believe there are testable claims. Is that definition written down somewhere, or is it just a gentlemen’s agreement?