I have not problem with discussing ID in a public forum as long as the pros and the cons of the concept are fully discussed so that people can make up their minds on the validity of the concept.
I also see no reason to restrict discussion of design concepts as long as both sides of the design controversy are presented. For more on this see
EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
The proper {place\venue\arena\field} for this kind of discussion though - imh(ysa)o - is philosophy. The reason for this is that philosophy can include metaphysical logical constructs as well as science and it does not need to be redefined to make ID concepts fit. Many ID proponents admit this to some extent as they frequently discuss the philosophy of science.
The main area where I have problems with ID is where they are trying to scam people, such as through the misrepresentation of the signature document actually questioning evolution rather than expressing normal scientific skepticism and caution. I have demonstrated the logic of this at truthmapping.com as well
http://www.truthmapping.com/viewtopic.php?id=436
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.