Why not?
The Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy lays out the plan whereby they will push religion in the guise of science.
The phrase cdesign proponentsists in a draft of the Pandas book shows that the term design proponents almost completely replaced creationists in 1987, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision. None of the definitions or text changed -- just "creationists" being replaced by "design proponents."
And finally a Federal District Court has weighed the evidence and determined that ID is creationism (Dover).
So why is it that a review would not note this obvious connection between ID and creationism.
OK, but again, "religion" is not the same thing as "creationism."
The phrase cdesign proponentsists in a draft of the Pandas book shows that the term design proponents almost completely replaced creationists in 1987, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision. None of the definitions or text changed -- just "creationists" being replaced by "design proponents."
Obviously creationists are design proponents, in the same way that Bassett hounds are dogs. The latter is a broader term. That doesn't legitimize identifying all dogs as Bassett hounds.
And finally a Federal District Court has weighed the evidence and determined that ID is creationism (Dover).
LOL, so a court can tell people that they don't really believe what they think they do! Good one.
So why is it that a review would not note this obvious connection between ID and creationism.
Connection? Sure. But pushing ID does not equal pushing Creationism, at least as the word has always been understood.