Rob Crowther’s choice of title is ironic. Crowther wants to use this to indicate that ID incorporates any mention of ordinary design that one may encounter in the scientific literature. That is, for reasons John Wilkins and I explained in our peer-reviewed journal article, an error.
The real use of the title, though, will come in future legal proceedings where the antievolutionists try to pass off their old, bogus arguments as something worthy of inclusion in public school science curricula. There, I will be pushing for “Intelligent Design By Any Other Name Is Still Intelligent Design” in its real and legitimate deployment: any label that brings in the same arguments used in “intelligent design” is still just “intelligent design”, which is still just “creation science”, which was still just “scientific creationism”, which was still just “creationism”. So do bring on “critical analysis”, “strengths and weaknesses”, “intelligent evolution”, and whatever euphemistic neologism you want to put on the outside of the box, Rob Crowther. When we look inside the box and see the same old garbage as before, we will know — and any judge will know — that “Intelligent Design By Any Other Name Is Still Intelligent Design”.