The ID movement uses that very argument - that they are only arguing for design - so it is hardly new, nor a good way to distinguish your views from theirs. Of course they do so because they want to get their ideas into schools, so hiding the religious propaganda aspect is important to them.
First, a syllogism may certainly be Creationist without explicitly mentioning God or Creation. They may be implicit, for instance.
Second, Paley's argument offers no robust argument for design - it is based on appearances only, with no direct evidence. Since evolution better explains the evidence it should not be surprising that Paley's argument is rejected. (And since Paley's argument is rightly rejected there is no good reason for adding it to the curriculum.)
Third, the context of the argument matters. For instance, since there is no good reason for introducing Paley's argument to the curriculum - other than to refute it - it is quite reasonable to assume a motive other than good education. If a creationist wishes to alter the curriculum in a way that supports Creationism - and lacks any other merit - it is quite reasonable to conclude that it is all about Creationism.
quote: If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity) Life has the elements of design Therefore life is designed.
You explicitly assert that the having "the elements of design" is identical to being designed. I don't believe that this is a common claim, and it is one that definitely requires examination, in conjunction with with the second premise.
I also note that the argument implies a designer that does not qualify as "life" which raises issues that may well be relevant to the question of whether the argument is Creationist or not.
Finally I will point out that evolution is certainly not intelligent design - if you wish to include evolution as a "designer" you must drop the qualifier "intelligent" - and wouldn't the acceptance of evolution as a valid solution make the argument useless to you anyway ?
quote: My syllogism, doesn't contain any creationist or theist premises, sure you can SAY/CLAIM that it is really creationism, but obviously you can't say that logically you can prove my motives according to cynicism. It is 100% SPECULATION to say that the syllogism is creationist.
It is hardly cynical to suggest that a creationist making an argument intended to support creationism is being a creationist.
quote: Think about it - even if I did form it to defend creation, as obviously I do that all the time, why does my motive change a true argument?
If the creationist label doesn't matter, why are you so concerned about it ? None of my criticisms of the argument depend on it being creationist.
quote: Even so, this doesn't mean that his syllogism is wrong.
Lacking merit would mean that is not a good argument.
quote: Finally, I have no "wish" or motive to get creation into science class, for why would I want apologetics in a science class given rules of science don't allow for God-of-the-gaps reasoning? I have reasoned for fifteen years, that creationism is not science.
Didn't you notice that I was talking about the ID movement which has influencing education as a major focus ? Or that their reason for making the exact same argument that they are only talking about design is part of that ? You haven't given any reason for wanting to avoid the creationist label but you seem to be dead set on it - when according to you it shouldn't matter.