According to Judge John Jones (2005 trial of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al):"ID is the progeny of creationism
The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work."However, to Creationists, there is a distinct difference between the two.Answers in Genesis:"However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."Creation Ministries International:"The Intelligent Design Movements motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of todays evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.""The IDMs refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.There is no philosophical answer to their opponents logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movements success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways."
No. Although Darwin's name is still used in the naming of selection processes other than "Natural" selection (the various "Darwinisms"), and he observed artificial selection in agriculture, Darwin anticipated and spoke out against eugenics and "social Darwinism" before the terms were even coined. The movie actually quotes his condemnation, although it omits most of his argument in order to make it appear that he favored eugenics:"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil"Likewise, some of the most vocal opponents of the eugenics movement in the 1900s were evolutionary biologists themselves, as eugenics is built upon gross misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.