"Given: In a textbook on creationism, the word creationism was replaced everywhere by ID, with no other significant changes; the result was a textbook on ID."
Creationism is a specific form of ID, but that does not mean that ID is creationism. By the same token, a motorcycle is a type of a vehicle, but not all vehicles are motorcycles. Funny how evolutionists seem to have so much trouble with this simple fact.
If you are indeed correct that no changes were made other than a global search-and-replace of "creationism" with "ID" (which I doubt), and if the book still made sense, then apparently they were using the word "creationism" where "ID" was more appropriate. In that case, they should have used ID in the first place, and their revision was perfectly reasonable.
So if I write a textbook about motorcycles, and change the word 'motorcycle' everywhere to the word 'vehicle', I'd have a textbook about vehicles? As in 'Harley Davidson is the leading American manufacturer of vehicles'?
If you are indeed correct that no changes were made other than a global search-and-replace of "creationism" with "ID" (which I doubt), and if the book still made sense, then apparently they were using the word "creationism" where "ID" was more appropriate. In that case, they should have used ID in the first place, and their revision was perfectly reasonable.
Doubt all you want. the textbook was called Of Pandas and People; it was written as a textbook on creationist biology; but after Evans vs. Aguillard, they simply did a global find/replace, and turned it into a textbook on ID. The revision was done purely to try to avoid the legal bar against teaching creationism in biology class.
It's in the Dover trial record; see Barbara Forrest's testimony.