Things must really be unraveling for the ID supporters. First, as Dave Thomas notes, Jonathan Witt admits that the identity of the designer is a matter of religion (look mom! no space aliens!):
[I]n fact ID appeals to positive evidence for design and merely detects design, leaving the question of the designer’s identity to religion.
Secondly, this idea that creationism is an old concept that the courts have already decided on flies in the face of the testimony of two credible scientists who basically testified, subject to rigorous cross-examination, that what they were basing their theory of intelligent design was scientific data, empirical data, that they saw in their labs, the complex biological structures that they viewed they concluded could not have been caused by Darwin’s theory of natural selection acting on random mutation; that these complex biological systems were there because they served a purpose. And that’s the reason that they said it is an intelligent design.
I’m sure he meant “intelligent design,” but why would he make such a slip if there is no link between ID and creationism?