While your attempt to cast “Intelligent Design” as a capitonym (like polish/Polish or split/Split) is valiant, it fails spectaculary since yuor subsequent comments make it abundantly clear that the Discovery Institute don’t have a specific position on ID:
I don’t know Hedin’s personal version of “intelligent design.” I don’t whether he is in the Behe camp (ID-evolutionist), the Meyer camp (ID-OEC), or the Nelson camp (ID-YEC). …
… ID is a big tent. …
…All three sub-groups of ID people, the ID-evolutionists (Behe, Denton), the ID-OECs (Meyer, Luskin), and the ID-YECs (Nelson), agree on two broad general points:
1-- there is evidence in nature for design
2-- purely unguided and unplanned processes do not account for what we see
…
The first of those also associated Hedin’s “intelligent design” with the “ID” of the DI, indicating that they’re one and the same. It’s also worth remembering that the original “intelligent design” of Pandas was also lower case, as were the pre-Pandas references to “intelligent design” by the ICR (both of which also link “intelligent design” to creationism"), as are many, many instances in DI writings. .
Your “two broad general points” which IDers agree on re “Intelligent Design” (upper case) are so general that it’s hard to imagine how they could possibly not apply to anything Hedin says about “intelligent design” (lower case).
So unless you can explicitly state what differentiates “Intelligent Design” from “intelligent design” and show that Hedin means the latter, the DI camps all separately mean the former, and confirm that Pandas and the ICR used the wrong version, I’m rejecting your assertion that there is a meaningful distinction as nothing more than a self-refuted attempt to justify your ridiculous claim that Hedin’s book isn’t an ID book…