Intelligent Design is nothing more than old fashioned creationism poorly disguised in a blatent attempt to sneak past the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of religion.

The Discovery Institute

This is apparent from the infamous Wedge Document from the equally infamous Discovery Institute, one of the key promoters of Intelligent Design Creationism:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

The Discovery Institute is heavily financed by Howard Ahmanson Jr., a Dominionist who openly states "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

From Their Own Mouths

The creationist roots of the Intelligent Design movement are also clear from the statements of many of its principals.

The creationists pioneered many of the arguments that we are making today and some of them feel, with some justification, that they haven't gotten enough credit for what they did.
-- Phillip Johnson, "Godfather of Intelligence Design"
Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
-- Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
Intelligent design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
-- William Dembski

Intelligent Design Is Certainly Not Science

Some major ID proponents are even honest enough to admit that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' -- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
-- Paul Nelson, Touchstone, 2004

The Money Shot

The final, unequivocal proof of the equivalence of Intelligent Design and creationism, though, came out of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover court case in Dover, Pennsylvania. At issue in the case was whether or not recommending the Intelligent Design "text" Of Pandas and People to students in a science class constituted a government establishment of religion.

The plaintiffs subpoenaed the publisher for all drafts of the book. Dr. Barbara Forrest reviewed the thousands of pages of draft copies and found the smoking gun. Immediately following the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard where the Court found the teaching of "creation science" unconstitutional, the text of Of Pandas and People was dramatically modified. These two graphs from the National Center for Science Education show the changes:

Without change to the rest of the book, the term "creationist" was replaced with "intelligent design proponent." The evolution from creationism to Intelligent Design did, however, leave a fossil record. On page 3-41 of the 1987 version is the sentence "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."

The fact that Intelligent Design is creationism is beyond dispute.

A video of Forrest's research is available, as is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling, which is well worth reading.

www.softwarematters.org