It's not. "Intellectual dishonesty" refers to dishonest TACTICS in an intellectual debate. So what one believes (or doesn't believe) cannot by itself be "intellectually dishonest." But I should also comment on your implication that Intelligent Design is the same as Creation. It's not. We 'evolutionists' are constantly correcting Creationists on the intellectually dishonest tactic of munging evolution together with abiogenesis, the big bang, and even atheism, as if they are all one big incoherent mess. So to be fair, we 'evolutionists' should keep from munging these three terms: Creation - this generally refers to a belief in divine Creation in which a supernatural Creator is somehow involved. This allows for the possibility that the Creator can use *intermediate* naturalistic methods (such as human sexual reproduction for creating new human beings, or evolution for creating new species) for this act of Creation. Creationism - this generally refers to a specific belief in the mechanisms employed by the Creator ... namely, that the mechanisms must follow the descriptions in Biblical scripture, and exclude the slow evolution of modern species from shared ancestors. So while "Creation", may or may not include evolution, "Creationism" is specifically a rejection of then scientific principle of evolution. Intelligent Design - this strictly speaking is just the claim that we can find evidence of deliberate, forethought and design in living things that cannot be explained by Darwinian natural selection. Many ID advocates (like Michael Behe) actually allow that evolution, including common ancestry, is true, but deny that natural selection is enough to explain it. So theoretically, you may accept Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. But *politically* the two are joined at the hip. Since Inelligent Design has almost zero support within the scientific community, if it did not have substantial support from a very large and vocal Creationist segment of the religious fundamentalist community, it would barely be a blip in the public arena. But one can surely be a firm believer in Creation (not Creationism), and firmly reject Intelligent Design as having any scientific merit whatsoever.