I understand. “Per se” means “in itself” (literally “through itself”, but no one translates it that way into idiomatic English). And you are right that by “in itself” I mean “ID theory”. When Discovery defines ID, they refer to ID theory, and I was following their usage. So if you want, render my “ID in itself” as “ID understood as a theory about design in nature,” in distinction from “ID as a social or intellectual movement involved in public activities such as education.”
I’ll try to say simply “ID theory” in the future, but if I occasionally revert unconsciously back to “ID in itself”, you and anyone reading this will know what I mean.
They’re both legitimate topics of discussion, but I have this recurring problem (not from everyone, but from some people) that when I’m discussing a theoretical point about Behe, miracles, and design, someone will sometimes switch to grumbling about something Discovery said about some school board in Missouri, to prove that ID is all just YEC creationism. But I see from your comments that you understand this.
I don’t mind if someone wants to hold a separate discussion on, e.g., “Did the Discovery Institute behave responsibly in the Missouri case?” That’s fine with me. But in that case, I wish they would blame whatever sins they see not on “ID” but on Discovery – which is an organization, not a theory. I will not dismiss the importance of any abuses that Discovery or other groups of ID proponents may have been responsible for. I will listen with an open mind. But I won’t address it if the topic at the moment is whether Behe endorses front-loading or intervention. I shouldn’t have to address it, in that context.
You suggest that “IDM” is a possible term, and sometimes it is fine, but since it could apply to people and things outside of Discovery, I think that it’s better to pinpoint “Discovery” where Discovery is directly involved, than to refer to an amorphous “ID movement”. I won’t quibble, however, if someone says “IDM” and it’s obvious in context what they mean. And if I’m in doubt what someone means, I’ll ask. I hope people will do the same with me.
Yes, and I’m always willing to do that when I sense I’m talking to someone who is relatively new to the debates, and just learning about ID, Discovery, etc. It gets harder to do that when I can tell I’m dealing with old hands who have been attacking ID for years, yet try to pull a fast one by lumping the individual position of Behe in with creationism.