Fallacies of classification
Fallacies of classificationFiddling classification helps to adjust reality to preconceptions. Intelligent design attempts to become science, not by doing scientific research, but by promotion and mimicking science. If intelligent design were legitimate science one would expect significant contributions to scientific literature.
Intelligent design claims it's not creationism. Clearly it's not "creation science", but "creation science" is only a subset of creationism. Intelligent design is in fact a larger subset of creationism.
The Discovery Institute claims that evolution is "disputed science". They point to signatures on a petition (and refer to a few obscure articles in minor journals). Petitions are neither "scientific", nor a scientifically legitimate method.
"Teaching the controversy" in science implies that scientists doubt evolution. Scientific literature shows otherwise. Similarly "teaching both sides" implies two scientific (and opposing) viewpoints on evolution.
Evidence for evolution is now strong enough so that creationists divide evolution into "microevolution" (what they believe) and "macroevolution" (what they reject). When confronted with believable examples of macroevolution they adjust the definition of species to claim that it's only microevolution. The most naive view of macroevolution is that it involves events such as changing cats into dogs which is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of macroevolution.
Creationists would like to see creationism in public school science curricula. What's in the curriculum depends on what's apologetics and what's science. Creationists prefer to slur the distinction between science and apologetics.