I find the Dawkins quotation you selected to be rather fascinating in that it loses context when one does not consider the full context of Dawkins’ biography, publications, debates, political and ideological activism and so on: Wikipedia on Dawkins The quote is indeed methodological naturalism, but his ideology is clearly atheism, metaphysical naturalism. And he (like the folks at infidels.org) use circular reasoning to conclude that methodological naturalism proves metaphysical naturalism – i.e. one should not be surprised to find answers in nature when that is the only place they are looking.
Your other suggestion, that “intelligent design 101” ought to be labeled “theology 101” is not correct because intelligent design has no Holy writ, articles of faith or doctrine. The objective of the movement (as compared to hypothesis) is to eliminate naturalism as a presupposition.
However, I do agree the metaphor ought to be expanded to show where creationism would fit. So here goes:
All of you who believe God created the universe, which is creationism per se, please step to the back of the room for a moment. Ok, you guys in the front of the room: if any of you reject methodological naturalism as a presupposition in science, then please proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101". (walking to the back of the room)
All of you who believe God created the universe and then did nothing further (Deists) – please move back to the front of the room, your beliefs will not get in the way. All of you who believe God created an old-looking universe at some time in the past (Gosse Omphalos hypothesis) – please move to the front of the room because your theology could mean anything from last Thursday to millennia or more and won’t interfere with the class.
Ok, now, those of you who believe God created the universe including evolution as His tool and that Adam was the first ensouled man (Catholics and the majority of Christians) – please move to the front of the room, your theology will not interfere.
Those of you who believe everything in Scripture but say the age of the universe is explained by relativity and inflationary theory (6000 years from the inception space/time coordinates approximately is 15 billion years for our space/time coordinates), proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101".
Now, all of you that remain who do not believe the universe was created some 6,000 years ago and Adam was the first mortal man (Young Earth Creationism) - please go back to admissions, I don’t have a clue where you belong.
The rest of you here in the back of the room are Young Earth Creationists, please go to Morris’ classroom, “Biblical literalism 101”. (walking to the front of the room)
Whew. Ok, now all of you who remain in this classroom – we will be learning and doing biology with the presumption, not the metaphysics, of naturalism. If any of you try to bring your own ideology or metaphysics to the lab, you will be ejected from the class altogether.” LOL!
I have two problems with that.
One is I admit a personal bias that sometimes keeps me from separating the idea of ID with the practice of it. I have followed and studied creationists for a long time, and I saw the evolution from creationism to ID. I know that most of the proponents (at least the ones I see, the dolphin problem*) start with the Christian God as the creator, then put up this agnostic shield to protect themselves from claims of being neo-creationists. The recent Dover trial showed this quite clearly.
The other is a matter of wording, but one that is important to me. I see them as not trying to remove a naturalist presumption, but as trying to include the presumption of the supernatural.
FTR, I believe methodological naturalism is the right way.
* The dolphin thing, that I learned while taking psychology, roughly quoting the prof: "For thousands of years, there have been reports from sailors saying that dolphins saved them after a shipwreck or after being thrown overboard. They say how the dolphins pushed them to shore when they couldn't have made it themselves. From this, many assume that dolphins are our friends, that they try to save our lives."
"But I proffer that the dolphins don't care about us. They merely play with the creatures flailing in the water, pushing them in random directions. We think dolphins are friendly because we only hear the stories from those who were pushed to shore, not from those who were pushed out to sea to drown."