Pretty much, yeah. You nailed it.
You seem to have a pretty poor opinion of human imagination.
Not at all if there are only two things to "imagine". There is life and there is death. There is pregnant and not pregnant. There are no third options for either of these sets of choices but that is not evidence of a lack of imagination.
Likewise, life either has inherent meaning governed by an eternal transcendent moral code (and said code's Writer -- or Writers if you prefer) that exist outside our heads and independently of what anyone thinks of them; or we are just random collections of atoms that are worth nothing more than the chemicals these atoms form -- false "beings" who haunted by their deep down knoweldge that life has no meaning but are forced to pretend it does in order to find the strength to keep getting up every morning -- sort of like cranking the car radio up loud when you hear funny noises from the engine.
Is my imagination poor because I can't think of a third option? Maybe, but you have yet to make a case for one. In berating me for my "poor" opinion of the human imagination, you have yet to tell me what such an alternative might be -- unless you are saying (below) that the fact that people are bored with church and metaphysics implies a third option?
Give 9 out of 10 people who didn't grow up saturated with religion a choice between cleaning the stove or attending church, they'll clean the stove. For 9 out of 10 guys, sticking pins through there eyelids is about a tie with attending church. For 9 out of 10 humans, not church-conditioned since childhood, at minimum, metaphysics is a boring, pointless exercise, maybe because it's inherently a boring, pointless exercise.
It's a bit of a strange leap to suggest that being bored by something is automatic proof that it's meaningless or pointless. 9 out 10 of people are bored by all kinds of things -- like chemistry, politics, surgical techniques, free market economics, light infantry tactics, history, earthquake safety drills here in L.A., criminology, ambulance driving skills that ensure both speed and safety, etc., etc., etc., etc. But that doesn't make them meaningless or pointless. (If anything, it's evidence that 9 out of 10 people are mentally lazy and far too easily bored.)
So as you see, pointing out that many people are bored by church as a means of discrediting religion won't cut it. You'll have to find some other way.
We used to call this a false dichotomy in rhetoric class. The common example is "either you are for me or against me". The utility for the arguer, if he can make this argument stick, is pretty obvious--if not the compelling logic. There are plenty of examples around, should you care to look, of people who are neither nihilists, nor theists, yet seem to be struggling along just about as well as anyone else.
Let's try to stay on track--what we are discussing is why it isn't necessary to teach ID in science class. You've made the case that theological metaphysics ought to be granted consideration in this regard. That is all I have attempted to refute. I have made no attempt, and do not intend to make an attempt, to suggest that metaphysical explanations for origins are ever going to be ruled out by science.
The somewhat unrelated subtext has come up that you are insisting that it is necessary to adopt theological metaphysics to maintain decency and civilization, and I have suggested that this is obviously self-serving and unlikely on the available historical evidence. In this regard, I would also suggest that I have not, therefore, attempted to discredit religion.
You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between attacking and defending.