Despite the protestations of its proponents, “intelligent design theory” (ID) is not science but creationism, making it in its essence a supernaturalist religious belief. This fact has been established conclusively for the legal record in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) and for the public by a decade of scholarship, much of which helped to secure the Kitzmiller plaintiffs’ victory in this first legal case involving ID. Moreover, ID is not merely a religious belief but, more specifically, a narrow form of sectarian Christianity, as specified by its own proponents. The nature of ID as a creationist, therefore religious, movement has been revealed not only by its critics, but also, most importantly, by its proponents. The explication of ID by its critics as creationism, and therefore religion, reflects the way the movement views itself.
In other words, proponents argue that ID is not creationism and that it is creationism. So which is it? Unfortunately Forrest seems to be preferring simplistic answers and working hard at avoiding any substance. And that the paper appears in the Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology is an unfortunate sign of evolution's impact on scientific culture. I'm still waiting for her to explain the methodological naturalism mandate.