Faith writes:
But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views? What's dishonest about that?
I wish to agree with TimChase in slightly different words.
Of course it’s dishonest. The teaching of Creationism was declared in violation of the constitution because it was trying to teach religion in public schools. ID is nothing but warmed over Creationism in weak attempt to pretend it is not about god. As I recall many phrases from creationism were found in ID as word for word identical.
It is dishonest because they a trying to promote what was declared wrong by making a few technical changes while it fundamentally retains the same meaning.
ID says goddidit by saying (someone_supernatural_and_magical_but_we_don't_know_who)didit. Then claims its not saying goddidit.
I claim that creationists and IDest are both dishonest. They both want religion taught in public schools. But neither will fess up to that and recognize that they are in contradiction to the constitution. They are knowingly trying to circumvent the constitution via the back door rather that facing the differences and openly challenging the constitution.
™ Version 4.2