My first thought, I really need a copy editor =/. You picked out the line with the absolute worst grammar. Here it is fixed…
This movement seeks to use scientific methods to demonstrate that there is evidence for design in nature. ID does not self-identify as a religious or creationist, and it can coexist with evolution.* It is included here because many religious students see ID as a reason to reject evolution.
- For example, Michael Behe is a leading voice in the ID movement, and also a theistic evolutionist. His acceptance of common descent is consistent with mainstream science. His irreducible complexity argument is not.
My second thought, I hope @Eddie likes the definition too. Then I will know I have truly succeeded . Also, you might enjoy @Jon_Garvey’s entertaining and kind tribute…
Please do consider promoting my project in your social circles. If you want to see peace in the creation wars, this might be one step towards it.
To your question…
BioLogos, I think, is a puzzle to the theistic evolutionists in their camp, and enemy to the anti-evolutionists. As @BradKramer might say, we challenge the premise of the entire debate. They do not know what to do with us in many ways.
Like most large movements, I think ID is best understood sociologically, rather than through the lens of ideological consistency. Though there are many exceptions, many in its crowds see ID as an argument against common descent. Of course, this sentiment is shared by many (but not all) of the leading voices in the movement too.