I am compelled to fall back upon what I presented in post 259. If "Creation", as used interchangeably with "ID" by the authors of "Of Pandas and People" isn't the central tenet of "Creationism", and "Of Pandas and People" isn't an authoritative textbook on (now) "ID", then I'll accept the error of my ways.
If, on the other hand, "Creationism" and "ID" are merely nebulous catchalls for a multitude of dissimilar beliefs (God created the world in 7 days vs. God took his time, ID that rejects evolution vs. ID that accepts evolution, etc.), then I don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for failing to take into account the heretical views of the hellbound who turn their backs upon orthodoxy. = )
As to Judge Jones, am I going to have to review the relevant portions of the Edwards, and Freiler decisions to get some background on his statement? Yes. Am I willing to do that at this time? No.
So, yeah, the portion of Judge Jones' decision that you quoted does appear odd to me, but my opinion is admittedly ignorant.
Here is a question for you. When Monsanto produces genetically engineered corn, is that ID ? For if it is, I believe in ID. However, I think ID for the most part are creationists posing as scientists and attributing everything to the supernatural.
Judge Jones decided to push the envelope for the reading pleasure of the higher courts, alas not in the Dover case, which is not being appealed, but in other cases, such as Cobb. It I think will do his cause more harm than good. He went way over the top it appears, and stuck his foot in his mouth. But then the trial court judge in Cobb indulged in the same thing, in a more modest way, and the 11th circuit was not pleased.