No, it's not.
I do not believe that the Bible is nonfiction. I do not believe in the existence of an activist deity who intervenes in the day-to-day operations of this planet. I do not accept the Biblical account of creation.
However, I find the theory that random mutation and natural selection were the only factors which produced the incredibly diverse and complex panoply of life on this planet to be wholly unsatisfactory. There are numerous reasons, which I won't get into unless asked, that I believe the theory is fatally flawed. I believe that the most likely alternative explanation is that an intelligent designer was involved. I'm not proclaiming this theory as The Truth (anyone who claims to know what happened is an idiot; the evidence doesn't rise to the "clear and convincing" standard, let alone constituting proof beyond a doubt) but I do believe it's more likely than the alternative.
There is a difference between young-earth creationism and intelligent design theory, and it's far more than a "fig leaf". While it may be true that many young-earth creationists use arguments from intelligent design to further their agenda, that doesn't erase the distinction.
And I find it appalling that a federal judge considered the manifestly factual statement that evolution is a theory to constitute a state establishment of religion. The judiciary has run amok.
The fact is that if you look into the people who are promoting intelligent design, you'll find they are overwhelmingly the same people who have pushed creationism all along. It's like the Greens, who are dominated by "former" communists, pushing the same agenda under a different name. Sure, they picked up a few outsiders, but it makes no difference.
If you were never a creationist, it just means you're part of the fig leaf.
Thank you very much. Very well said.
But if you study how the periodic table came about, the standard model, string theory. How there is symmetry that breaks at just the right points etc etc.
So it is hard to NOT support a designer. But only time and faith will determine what form the designer will take.
As a rough analogy, it is sort of like the Higgs Boson. The math and particle symmetries say it should be there, but we have not proven it yet. Remember, at one point the Top Quark was in this catagory with the standard model.