So you can have an IDist that's not a creationist, and a creationist that's not an IDist.

Yes, but you forgot one of the most important similarities they share: according to most ID-critics, they'd both be IDiots.

The defining premise of ID is that intentional action (design) can be rationally inferred from its effects on intended states of affairs (that is, designed objects or events). The defining premise of creationism is that God created the world as described in the book of Genesis (particularly a literal, 24-hour days reading of it). As I see it, neither of these concepts entails the other. An IDer, of course, does not need to believe in Genesis at all. On the flipside, while a creationist will believe that life was designed, I don't think the view necessarily entails that the design of biological structures can be rationally inferred from the structures themselves. So you can have an IDist that's not a creationist, and a creationist that's not an IDist.

the relationship between creationism and Intelligent Design is the same as the relationship between a square and a rectangle: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All creationists are IDers, all IDers are NOT creationists……either by self-identification or by metaphysical assumptions.

If you really can't discern the fundamental difference between ID and Creationism, then your scientific judgment itself is suspect. The former is a much simpler exercise than most of the exercises the latter involves.

David Heddle and other reasonable theists agree, but the Discovery Institute appears to want to distance itself from the notion that Cosmo ID requires a God or God-like "D"esigner:

1) fine-tuning requires the "T"uner be outside the present universe
2) it requires a "basic skill set" which would encompass something approaching omnipotence and omniscience
3) if the "T"uner doesn't live in this universe, that supports the multiverse hypothesis, something which immediately shoots the anthropic principle in the foot
4) if the "T"uner doesn't live in the material universe, why is the DI on record outspokenly against "materialism and its cultural legacies"
5) if the "T"uner doesn't live in this universe, and the argument is that this universe's physical constants must've been designed to harbor life, is the same true for the "T"uner? is this not an infinite regress?

Among other things,

1. It means that ID isn't a new argument, it is just an old argument that was long ago refuted. It's not new science, it's old pseudoscience revived by superficial changes in terminology.

2. It means that everyone who has called ID "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" was exactly correct, thus confirming the accuracy of our cynical instincts.

3. It means that district court judges don't have to invent a whole new jurisprudence to assess the constitutionality of ID; instead, they can be very conservative, note that ID is identical to the definition of creation-science offered by the creationists in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, and conclude, rightly, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already made this decision for them, back in 1987.

1. So what and who cares?
2. Same as #1 with addition that neither you nor any of your anti-ID cohorts have ever actually established the claim, unless, of course, including misrepresentations and straw-man arguments consititute establishment of an argument.
3. I wasn't aware that courts decide what is or is not science. Is your ability to make a credible argument to support how you wish to define science so bad that you need to rely on a poorly informed court to do it for you? That's a great philosophy of science you've got there, Nick… the Philosophy of Science according to a Judge. Wow!

Matzke continues to preach with:

Actually, I've worked much more on that side of the question than the philosophy of science side, both for the trial and elsewhere. The typical ID arguments are basically just bogus objections to evolution, coupled with a very weak analogy to human design. So most of the work is in looking at the objections to evolution. My experience has been that the IDers essentially never understand the first thing about the topics they blather about. Instead, you basically have a collection of wild assertions and half-baked talking points.

One example of how we deconstructed Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument during the trial is written up here (follow the links therein).

All of this might be intersting, Nick, if it had anything at all do with the question I asked you. So, just in case you missed it, here it is again:

I'm far more interested in your telling me how you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that the apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? Do you have a scientific answer to that question, Nick, or are you just going to continue to play games with the term ID?

Would you care to take another stab at answering the actual question, or do you want to continue your usual diversionary tactics, otherwise known as red herrings.

I'm really not a methodological naturalist in any sense - I think religious beliefs have a role to play in scientific theorizing, I don't think scientists should have to act as if God doesn't exists, and I don't think there should be a rule that science can't refer to supernatural processes or causes (I could be wrong, after all).

By "I could be wrong, after all" I mean that I could be wrong about the position that Matzke quoted above where I say science shouldn't refer to supernatural causes. This is exactly why I'm not a methodological naturalist - because I realize I could be wrong. I'm not going to impose a rule that is based on my own weird philosophical biases just so I can call those other people quacks.

I'm far more interested in your telling me how you know [i]scientifically[/i] that the properties of biological systems are such that the apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? Do you have a [i]scientific[/i] answer to that question, Nick, or are you just going to continue to play games with the term ID?

Actually, I've worked much more on that side of the question than the philosophy of science side, both for the trial and elsewhere. The typical ID arguments are basically just bogus objections to evolution, coupled with a very weak analogy to human design. So most of the work is in looking at the objections to evolution. My experience has been that the IDers essentially never understand the first thing about the topics they blather about. Instead, you basically have a collection of wild assertions and half-baked talking points.

One example of how we deconstructed Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument during the trial is written up here (follow the links therein).

So what? Even [intelligent design] did mean 'special creation' (which it doesn't), so what?

Among other things,

1. It means that ID isn't a new argument, it is just an old argument that was long ago refuted. It's not new science, it's old pseudoscience revived by superficial changes in terminology.

2. It means that everyone who has called ID "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" was exactly correct, thus confirming the accuracy of our cynical instincts.

3. It means that district court judges don't have to invent a whole new jurisprudence to assess the constitutionality of ID; instead, they can be very conservative, note that ID is identical to the definition of creation-science offered by the creationists in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, and conclude, rightly, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already made this decision for them, back in 1987.