IF you think Moonies is based on Christianity, well, perhaps you no nothing about the Moonies or about Christianity. Perhaps we should start there. Moonies is not based on Christianity.
You said “Christian” God, not just God. Islam and Christianity are different religous. This is just silly @Timothy_Horton, just modify it to say:
You really think Wells doesn’t believe the Designer is God?
I would not think he would say it was his "Christian God’. Instead, he would say it was his “God”, which has almost no connection to my understanding of God.
The standard ID claim is ID has nothing to do with God. That is demonstrably false even if different people have different concepts of the one God.
I’ll try to keep that in mind. What about when non-scientists and judges refer to Dover and when the DI refers to Dover? Do they also mean both Kansas and Dover?
If they think they are talking about one event and you think they are talking about two different events as if they are the same I can see where you might think double-speak is involved.
Have you asked the DI whether when they refer to “Dover” they mean both Kansas and Dover? Somehow, I doubt that they do. Anyone specifically that you’d like me to ask? John West? Casey Luskin?
Then say this instead. Do not make an indefensible claim. You’d be ruthless with an ID proponent being half as sloppy as you. And you won’t even take it back. In this case, it is particularly absurd because the “Christian” in your claim only serves to make your claim false. Not smart. Live up to the same standards you subject everyone else.
How else do you think I found out? From directly talking to them about it. This was all news to me. It clarified quite a bit. That is why I never talk about just Dover. I always say Dover and Kansas. They were the same assault on evolution in the scientists’ minds. What ended it was the Dover ruling, so that is why Dover becomes important in the story for scientists. Shenanigans in Kansas put to an end with Dover. At this point, however, many people have forgotten the details and will mix details of the two episodes together. Remember, this was happening concurrently, at the same time.
@Mung The are good resources on the DI’s involvement at Dover and Kansas. This isn’t something to be argued about, source it and reference!
Modified as requested 
Patrick brought up Dover and the Wedge document. Joshua brought up Kansas. What am I supposed to be doing that they are not required to do?
Sorry @swamidass
I was waiting in line at the grocery and glanced at the forum and honestly thought such a short answer might be kind of funny.
Tell me more about double-speak.
Sorry Mung, I should not have picked on you. 
It’s ok as long as you are willing to deal with my response if you do. 
FFRF considers “Dover” to mean all cases including those going on right now where attempts “to teach the controversy” are introduced by any governmental education entity. The Dover decision was front and center in the discussion and threatened law suits in the recent Arizona Science Education Standards on Climate Change and Evolution. Dover is a Federal Precedent. It has the force of law across the United States. No local Board of Education can go against Dover. And no judge can go against it either because it was never appealed to a higher court so the lower court decision stands for the entire US forever.
Is being a cult all that bad? Christianity was a cult before it became mainstream.
Depends what you mean by “cult.” In the definitions that seem to be in play here, it is always bad to be in a cult.
Let me explain what I was referring to as a cult when I was speaking about what happened to Eric. When I used that term, I was referring to the very small group of ID proponents directly around Eric. It might have been just Marks and his thesis committee. It could have been a little bit broader than this. I said the cult of ID. I meant that little group at Baylor and perhaps elsewhere who were in charge of Eric’s PhD program. That’s all. It probably was the wrong term to use, perhaps cabal of ID would have been better.
You seem to be unaware of the processes by which cases reach the Supreme Court from the lower courts.
Can you point specifically to just exactly what the Dover/Kansas/Arizona/and all those other cases going on right now and therefore not yet decided prohibit? Please be specific and cite the relevant portion of the ruling or the not a ruling yet, as the case may be.
Did the NY Times get this wrong?
Judge Jones’s decision is legally binding only for school districts in the middle district of Pennsylvania.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/judge-rejects-teaching-intelligent-design.html
@Mung you are really missing the point. Perhaps we can talk a lawyer with expertise here to do an office hours to explain. The reason DI opposed Dover is because it was guaranteed to lead to this disastrous ruling for them, setting the precedent that ID = Creationism (from a legal sense). The ruling was only about Dover, but it was in Federal court, and counts as precedence for the whole country. This the de facto legal reality until they go back to Federal court someday and get a ruling that goes the other way.
I am certainly aware of the processes by which cases reach the Supreme Court from lower courts. Supreme Court cases must peculate up from Appellate Courts. Given that Dover (at Federal District Level) wasn’t appealed to the Appellate Court, it can’t be brought to the Supreme Court. Dover is done, end of story forever.
Yes, ID has been ruled as creationism which is religion and cannot be taught in public schools. It would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.
Did the NY Times get this wrong?
On Dec 20, 2005 the NY Times had it correct that the District Court ruling only applied to the middle district of Pennsylvania. But once the statute of limitation ran out on the possibility of an appeal to the 3rd District Court of Appeals, the lower court ruling becomes Federal precedent for the entire country forever. Even the Supreme Court has to follow its precedent.