Well, it is an old story that the invention of "Intelligent Design" was made as an response to the court ruling that creationism isn´t allowed to be taught in science classes and that the author of the creationist school textbook "Of pandas and people" shortly after the court ruling just replaced all occurrences of "creationism" in his book with "intelligent design" (and "god" with "intelligent designer") in order to "sell" it as not creationism, but an alternative scientific theory.
Aside from this I might add something about the use of "research" by AIG together with "creationism" and "intelligent design" (from Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area school district):
A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory...
It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller))....
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.
...
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
...
In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
...
Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hereinafter “AAAS”), the largest organization of scientists in this country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it “has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims” and that “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as part of science education. . .”
So it obviously doesn´t matter whether ID is creationism or not.
For the central question whether ID should be taught in science classes or not, the answer must be clear, i.e. as ID is no science, it shouldn´t be taught in science classes
The only notable "research" done by ID seem to be continuous (and so far fruitless) attempts at refutation of the ToE. Even a successful attempt at disproving ToE would however not prove ID, and ID proponents never make any attempts to find ways to prove the claims made by ID.
;)
