When a person speaks of Truth, it implies moralism. There are no absolute truths. Hypotheses abound. They are proven and disproven regularly. So you are talking relativism (very interesting concept, thank you!)
http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm
Some excepts:
Refuting relativism
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting.
All truth is relative
If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
What is true for you is not true for me
That is your reality, not mine Is my reality really real?
We all perceive what we want
If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
This is a complete red herring, and as such, all of your post which follows is as well. The first two sentences above are correct, they abound and are proven and disproven regularly.. but not all are.. many remain hypothesis for centuries. Atoms, once again, are an example.
Interesting little foray with that whole word game ya played with "truth", and your attempt to divert into moral relativism. I use that word true and truth, such as when I say science seeks to find the truth, in the context of seeking to find the factual nature of things. But then again, I think you really knew that and were just playing games. Morality issues have, in my opinion, no place in science beyond maybe studying the effects that certain moral beliefs have upon us. Who knows? To me, anything someone can ask a question about and wonder about is subject for scientific study in some form or other.
I think some, like yourself, fear ID being pursued because they think that it goes hand in hand with forcing some sort of morality into science, and fear the schools teaching kids moral issues in science class or something. I agree that moral issues should be left in philosophy and comparative religion types of classes, but do not think that simply exploring whether a intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe necessarily means you have to get involved in moral issues.
Huge numbers of people believe in some form of Creator. Whether one exists or not, the fact that so many people do believe in it is good reason to research that it, and to explore for evidence which may help prove or disprove it. It is something (at the very least a delusion) which merits study. Name me any other subject of study which science was willing to say "we cannot find out so we will not even try". Not provable? How can we know what tomorrow will bring?
When I encounter narrow minds on either side of this issue, be they believers in a creator, or atheistic types, I almost think it would be amusing if one day, somewhere on some planet, we found something which could prove irrefutably that there was once a God of some form.. but that he was now dead. Oh, how that would ruin EVERYONE'S day.