The meaning of "secular religion" is far from obvious. The meaning of "heresy" is quite obvious. What is idea are you trying to convey that is inconsistent with the meaning of the word "heresy"?
Tactic- you KNOW that I meant folks who practice some sort of religion but do NOT think God Created the design- what you are attempting to do is avoid this obviousness- play dumb, and zero in on issues that are so minute that by themselves they are nothing, BUT if enough of them are gathered together, you'll create a negative image of me or others in the minds of your jury. These are games that are played lesser forums as I pointed out- by folks who either can't or won't focuss on the meat of the subject and instead get into intense quibblings over non issues- OBVIOUSLY, anyone that doesn't beleive God created design is NOT practicing the Religion of God as they doubt God's own word. Call them what you like- I'll refere to them as secular religions who may have a mind knowledge of God, but are NOT God's true children- the secular mindset has crept in and overtaken their minds- they can claim to be God's people but they are not, as explained in detail by God's own word clearly enough.
If it makes you happy, so as to avoid two more pages of this little symantics game- I'll reword my original point and state that "People who don't believe God had ANYTHING to do with design work on the panel, AND in the secular science realm and who study STRICT science, yet feel that design is present in nature and believe a force is behind that design- whether that force is nature, or some other they take no position on the matter and instead focus on the design itself and adhere to STRICT science. To assert that ID is the same as Creation science therefore is dishonest and untrue. AND to even assert that Creation science doesn't adhere to STRICT science in their studies is equally dishonest and formed by a bias that allows eovlutionists the luxuries of opinion, but denies Chreation scientists the same luxuries of opinion. It is the OPINION of evolusionsits that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to evolution- it is the OPINION of Creation Scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point ot creation- it is the OPINION of ID scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to design- whether that design have a "natural" catylyst or be of a "force" catylyst is not known, but it is the DESIGN that is important in the study as further study of DESIGN may reveal important new evidences."
Are there some in ID movement that have opinions as to what the design means? Sure- does that discredit their scientific studies? ABSOLUTELY NOT- their ultimate goal is to study the design and to discover how that design affects everything.
Now- if you have a problem with my above statement, then address that and drop the symantics