"The vast majority of Ph.D. biologists see Intelligent Design as nothi ng more than the latest iteration of creationism." Cite? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just find these types of conclusory statements funny. You don't know this to be true. You may think it to be true. The Ph.D.'s you've spoken to may support the assertion. But you don't know what the "vast majority of Ph.D. biologists" think about ID.
I can't speak to what any given biologist might say, but it is simply a fact that ID is the latest iteration of creationism. The original textbooks using the term 'Intelligent Design' were written as creationism books, and simply replaced one phrase with the other after the SCOTUS decision came down. Same people, same language, same books, different primary term. The folks who have taken it upon themselves to champion ID (The Discovery Institute) have been pretty clear about their motives and their tactics, even going so far to release the Wedge Document which lays out what their reasoning and goals are. It is a political movement founded in religious ideology and really couldn't be much further removed from science. ID is a political tool of a religious movement which is loosely clothed in scientific terminology in an effort to obfuscate its purpose and introduce confusion in the public mind about what constitutes science. Scientists don't want to get too tied up in the political movement so they try to attack ID on its lack of merits, but the very act of engaging in the conversation sets up a false dichotomy that ID is an alternative scientific theory to evolution, despite the fact it is neither scientific or a theory. Seriously, try to find a book on ID which isn't written by a Discovery Institute member or 'consultant' or funded with their money. ID is an active and intentional attempt at deception.
