It means that they wrote it in their private capacity, representing themselves, not the DI. It means that the book represents only the opinions of those particular fellows, not necessarily of other fellows, or even of the majority of fellows; and it certainly does not represent the institutional policy of the DI – which is what we were talking about. You denied that the institutional policy of the DI in 2005 was what it is in fact was, and you did it by appealing to a book which some DI fellows wrote, in their private capacity, for another publisher, in 1999. That’s a materially misleading representation of the situation. My description of the DI position on mandating ID in 2005 was accurate. Yours was an invention.
First, the book never mentions anything called “ID creationism”, so you’re filtering its words through your interpretive lens. Second, the book clearly distinguishes “intelligent design theory” from “creationism”, in section 6. The point of section 6 is that this distinction means that the Edwards ruling does not apply to ID theory – which means that, in principle, ID theory could be taught in science class without constitutional violation.
Does it follow that because ID theory can be taught constitutionally, that it must be mandated? I don’t see that. I think the point is that if it produces better science education (as the authors thought it would), that’s a legitimate secular goal. I think the book is encouraging school boards who are thinking of including some discussion of ID not to be afraid of doing so on legal grounds. In retrospect, that advice was not so great, since an actual court did not accept the distinction made in section 6. But it was a plausible distinction in 1999 and the authors had the right to point out the legal possibilities.
You’re distorting the situation. Behe etc. were not there advocating that school boards should mandate ID. They were there to defend the idea of the theory of intelligent design, as a non-Bible-based enterprise appropriate to be talked about in science class. Behe talked about flagella etc. Scott Minnich did the same. They were trying to make clear the distinction between ID and creationism. They were using the opportunity to generate some positive public awareness. It largely backfired. But their presence didn’t alter the DI’s steady rejection of the Dover Board’s policy.
Nothing in the Dover 4-paragraph statement referred to “ID Creationism” or endorsed it. The theory of intelligent design was mentioned. And as the rest of your post trails off in more ravings about “ID Creationism”, which neither Cooper nor Discovery urged Dover to teach, I’ll stop here.