VR, intelligent design theory and creationist theory are not -- let me repeat that, NOT -- the same theory. You continually conflate the two as if they were identical. This is not so. ID does not specify the creator.
Insofar as ID invokes a creator, it is not inaccurate, I think, to describe it as a creationist theory - failing to specify who the creator might be does not obviate the fact that ID requires a creator of some sort. ID is, in that case, a specific example under the general heading of "creationist theory". Of course, there are other theories besides ID that invoke a creator, and might also be fairly described as "creationist" theories.
But it certainly requires a creator. There are, of course, different flavors of ID, some of which accept the same historical record of biology as evolutionists, just denying natural selection as the cause of diversity.
With all due respect, this is disingenous.
I have never seen any IDer posit any Creator other than God. I suppose one could post a God-like being, say a sub-deity or a vastly advanced non-human, but it still begs the question and passes the ball - at some point ID has to rely on God.
At any rate, I don't suppose fundamentalist Christians would be happy to see their children taught that man was created by a sub-deity or a vastly advanced non-human.
In a vacuum, it isn't the same theory. As a practical matter, it's the same old quote salads and strawmanning of evolution. The supposed guru of the movement, Philip Johnson, in particular is impressed by all YEC arguments that are not on the face of them identifiably YEC. (You can tell because he stole a bunch of them to write Darwin on Trial. Dumb-dumbing on the fossil record, transitional forms, Nebraska Man f'gosh sake!) He recommended the absurdist creationist geologist "John Woodmorappe" (not even his real name) to David Berlinski, who cited him in a paper.
I was moved to poetry, alas!
Dave Berlinski's reading trendThe sequence even looks funny. For decades, creationists fight to get creation into the schools and where possible outlaw the teaching of evolution. The US Supreme Court declares that states may not mandate the teaching of creationism, as such practice amounts to the establishment of religion by the state. So along comes this allegedly secular movement within science, ID. What are they doing? Addressing school boards, state by state. What the heck kind of secular, fledgling movement in science ever did that?
Is Philip Johnson's recommend,
Who gets his crap from Woodmorappe,
Who'll be a YECcie to the end.