“Creationism” is rarely employed in works of “academic science” (as opposed works about the social and political aspects of science which may sometimes be written by scientists). Read through actual technical science journals and technical science books and let me know how often anyone mentions “creationism.”
Academic philosophers also rarely write about “creationism,” and quite often they do not use the phrase “intelligent design creationism”. For example, neither Del Ratzsch, one of the most-cited philosophers on the subject of design, doesn’t use that combination in his famous book on design. Nor does Rope Kojonen, in his major analysis of intelligent design. Indeed, if you go down the list of “academic philosophers” who have written about “intelligent design creationism”, you will find that almost all of them are either themselves heavily politically involved in culture-war conflict (e.g., at the Dover trial) or are quoting from or borrowing phrases from those who are.
False, and demonstrably so. All the reasons you give for maintaining this falsehood have been amply refuted here in earlier discussions.
Only among people who already have a vicious prejudice against anything they say. The vast majority of people who would make that extreme statement are concentrated on internet blog sites dominated by atheists, or are members of the NCSE (which produces not a shred of new science, only political activism), and other such organizations.
I read several pieces of Weikart that are available on the internet. Whether I read the particular piece you posted (only a fragment of a book) is irrelevant, since my point all along has been that entire books should be read, so that all the nuances and qualifications in the argument can be noted, before judgment is passed on the book. All academics outside of the natural sciences, in humanities and social science subjects where academics have attention spans long enough to read whole books, know and understand this.
I repeat, for the apparently deaf, that I have not said that any of Weikart’s theses are true or have been demonstrated by him. I said only that people who were unwilling to read the whole argument of one of his books are not in an intellectual position to pass judgment on the soundness of the argument of the book. They can decide, based on an excerpt, that the book is not interesting or not convincing, and opt not to read it; that’s fine. But they should not lay down declarations about the value of the book in the tone of the Ten Commandments, which is pretty much what happened here.
Let’s now end this pointless discussion about books which no one here has read, except one person who read one book by the author in question, years ago, and by his own admission doesn’t even recall whether or not he finished it.