"Although they used the term in early writings, ID proponents today regularly deny that they are creationists. . . .
"[Yet] Among the revelations of the Kitzmiller trial were details of the [calculated] switch from the language of creation science to that of ID. . . .
"What happened in 1987 that occasioned this linguistic fig leaf? That is when the Edwards case was decided, finding it unconstitutional to teach creation science in the public schools. In subsequent drafts leading up to the published text, 'creation science' became 'design theory', and 'creationists' became 'design proponents'. The new terms were substituted in an almost search-and-replace manner.
"Barbara Forrest, an expert witness for the plaintiffs who examined the manuscripts, even turned up what is now humorously referred to as the 'Missing Link' between creationism and intelligent design—a sentence in the second 1987 draft [of Of pandas and people] that includes an accidental transitional form 'cdesign proponentsists'".
Robert T. Pennock, "The pre-modern sins of intelligent design," The Oxford handbook of religion and science, ed. Philip Clayton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 734-735 (732-748). William A. Dembski in this same Companion: "Despite its constant repetition, the charge that intelligent design is a form of creationism is false" ("In defense of intelligent design," 719). For Demski here, what this means is only that it doesn't necessarily entail creationism. What he does not address is the historical question of provenance. I find the article by Pennock damning.