: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson
, one of the founders of the ID movement
, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism
as a scientific concept.
Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not depend on distortion of the evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and that it is not assigned a vanishingly small probability (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008).
Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Christian god.
In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".
Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling
, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document