Another committed partisan, as the rest of his article (and much else that he has produced over the years) shows, and hardly objective. However, he does say two correct things in his opening sentences:
1-- the relationship between ID and creationism is “complex”;
2-- in significant respects, they are not the same.
In your own account, there is no complex relationship, and there are no significant differences. There is complete identity between the two, no difference at all in the substance of what they assert. The only difference, in your view, is rhetorical: ID disguises itself as something other than creationism, even though in fact it is nothing but creationism. So your own account goes against what Ruse says here. You’d better find another “authority” to quote at me.
But of course, arguments from authority carry no weight with me. Even if a really good philosopher, like Immanuel Kant or David Hume, as opposed to third-rate also-rans like Ruse, Pennock, Forrest, etc. asked me to accept their view on authority, I wouldn’t do it. Only philological evidence carries weight with me. Prove to me, based on the way the term “creationism” has been used for nearly a century in popular discussions over origins, that intelligent design is indistinguishable from creationism, and I’ll gladly yield the point.