Continuing the discussion from Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?:
You make a good point in that it is difficult to characterize Tour’s relationship with ID. Same is probably true with me. I did after all go public defending @aguager and Richard Buggs this last year. I certainly do not dismiss ID arguments on the genetic fallacy, but because of real scientific errors I see.
Jim, by the way, is a good friend of mine, and I certainly do not want to mischaracterize him. Most people I know in the ID movement consider him ID “associated.” This is likely because he is very connected to their community, and often makes argument about OOL that they like (though you seem to be misrepresenting his position). Probably the reason he is most known to be ID associated (not a proponent) is because he signed the Dissent From Darwinism, and has declined to this day to remove his name from this. He has paid some real costs to keep his name there, so it does seem to be something he is committed too.
I still find his work really helpful, and enjoy his friendship. He is “associated” somehow with ID, though I’m not sure the right way to describe it. Any help here @pnelson? Or @bjmiller? Or @CaseyLuskin? What is the right way to describe Tour’s relationship with you guys?