Given the political and rhetorical advantages of tagging one's opponent with the name "creationist" (there! -- stuck that label on your back, now just try to get people to take you seriously), it's not surprising that the phrases "intelligent design creationism" and "intelligent design creationist" have gained currency among critics of ID. But the labels are no more accurate than saying "Well, nearly all of the tetrapods I see on my drive to work in the morning are mammals, so, what the heck, let's use 'tetrapod' and 'mammal' interchangeably, and we can sort out any minor confusions later." Rhetorical advantages aside, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are not co-extensive terms. (I try never to use the term "Darwinist" for an evolutionary biologist unless he has used it freely to describe himself.)

Now comes a first-rate analytical paper from the paleontologist Marcus Ross, "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism," Journal of Geoscience Education 53 (2005):319-323. The analysis in this publication should rapidly become the standard reference for accurate terminology in the origins debate, replacing previous tendentious (or simply inaccurate) classifications. The paper is freely available here [WARNING: Large file (5+ megs) and slow download].

Here's the abstract:

The question of what differentiates young-Earth creationism (YEC) from Intelligent Design (ID) has resulted in inaccurate and confusing terminology, and hinders both understanding and dialogue. Though both YEC and ID groups have drawn distinctions between themselves, previous attempts to classify design-based positions on origins have been unable to adequately resolve their relationships. The Nested Hierarchy of Design, a multiple-character classification system, categorizes teleological positions according to the strength of claims regarding the reality, detectability, source, method, and timing of design, and results in an accurate and robust classification of numerous positions. This method avoids the philosophical and theological pitfalls of previous methods and enables construction of accurate definitions for a suite of teleological positions. The incorporation of the Nested Hierarchy of Design in classroom discussion could 1) better represent the suite of opinions among students, 2) clarify the many teleological positions, and 3) help to reduce tensions between educators, students, and the public.

Truth in plugging: Marcus is a friend of mine and occasional collaborator...but I'd be happy about this paper if it came from John Wilkins, John Lynch, Wesley Elsberry, or any other critic of ID who cared about descriptive accuracy. Marcus's approach represents a genuine advance and should be widely adopted.