As you must know if you have bothered to read any of the central texts, there is no resemblance between creationism and intelligent design theory. None.
But it's a useful way of smearing something you prefer not to argue about or permit anyone to know anything about.
It's true that they're very different. The difference is that (most form of purportedly scientific) creationism actually made substantive claims; e.g. how, when, where, in what context, etc, creation events occurred. ID, by contrast, makes no substantive claims, and virtually promises never to do so. It makes only the evaluative claims that "design" can be detected here and there, that it has something (unspecified as to what) to do with "intelligence," and that at least sometimes it can't be accounted for by "natural causes".
What this means, however, is that any creationist can comfortably and unreservedly adopt intelligent design, and do so whether he's an old earth creationist or a young earth creationist, whether he's a fiat creationist or a progressive creationist, and so on.
So it's not true to say there's no "resemblance". The resemblance is that between say, "Fascist" and "Nazi," or between "Professional" and "Doctor". Or better yet between and umbrella and those who stand underneath it. This is exactly what ID functions as (I believe by DESIGN): a sufficiently vacuous "umbrella" ideology for antievolutionists who are otherwise notoriously schismatic.
No resemblance? Au contraire....the backbone of both "theories" rests on the existence of a creator.