[Ichneumon]

But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover?

Why don't you read the decision before you jump to false conclusions about what it does or doesn't say?

In any case, a) Genesis existed long before either Aristotle or Christ, try to get your chronology straight, and b) the modern "ID" movement is indeed a trojan horse for modern fundamentalism (read the trial transcripts for abundant evidence), and that doesn't change no matter how far back someone/anyone might have speculated about some supernatural being waving his magic wand and making the world.

[inquest]

Why don't you read the decision before you jump to false conclusions about what it does or doesn't say?

The statement you quoted was in direct response to this excerpt from the judge's opinion, as quoted in the column:

"The overwhelming evidence is that [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory ... It is an extension of the fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

So where's the "false conclusion" about what the judge said?