Nobody on the planet thinks Denton is a creationist, except for you. And while a minority of one is not always wrong, in your case, it is.
I deny the validity of the term “ID Creationism”, which was invented, or at least first widely promoted, with the conscious attempt to misrepresent what ID people were saying, for political reasons. I do not deny that there are ID proponents who also happen to be creationists. However, the latter meaning is not what you have in mind, as I know from scores of exchanges with you here. You have in mind the deliberately distortive misrepresentation.
Not precise or clear enough. Our disagreement is over whether all ID proponents are automatically creationists, merely by virtue of being ID proponents. You affirm that proposition. I deny it. And I will never cease denying it, because it is objectively false, based on the philologically demonstrated typical usage of the term “creationism” in American popular discourse about origins, and based on the very explicit and well-reasoned statements of the meaning of ID on the Discovery website, which you have been linked to many times, but refuse to read. The ID people invented ID; it’s their term, not yours, and they, not you, get to define it. If you choose to define a term invented by someone else differently from the person who coined the term, you’re guilty of flagrant obstruction of communication.
You can correctly claim that certain ID proponents are creationist. But if you insist that ID, as such, is creationist, you are simply wrong, and whether this is due to incapacity or to unwillingness to properly use the English language, does not change your wrongness.
No, not at all. The donors to Discovery understand perfectly well that among ID proponents there are those who accept bacterium-to-man evolution. They know that ID is a big tent, and they accept that their money will be used to promote a wide range of people who defend ID, even if some of those people are not creationists. If they could not endure their money going to non-creationists, they would not donate to Discovery, but to Ken Ham or Hugh Ross some similar organization. There is no deception involved; Discovery is completely up front with its donors and makes no apology for printing Denton’s books.
You, on the other hand, think that Discovery practices deception. You think it’s trying to deceive school boards, and you presumably also think it is trying to deceive its donors by telling them all their money is going to print creationist books. But this is not the case. The donors know the score. They are much less stupid than you think they are.