Intelligent Design is not religion in the guise of science. The term is self-explanatory and does not imply God or religion.
Teleology is not religion in the guise of science. Intelligent Design however is a movement that advances a theological argument that relies on obfuscating science.
Occasionally, ID people will run back to simple teleology - but examining things closely (looking at Pandas and People, the Wedge document etc) reveals that the cdesign proponentists are not just championing teleology.
Intelligent Design is a specific movement which uses distortion and lying about science to advance their agenda. Teleology is an interesting philosophical argument, with possible implications in the study of nature (science).
If there was enough time to study the philosophy of science, perhaps teleology should come up. High School curriculum is already jam packed, but I learned about teleology at university without issue.
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.
Nobody is throwing out teleology. We are just calling a spade a spade when it comes to a certain movement which has proven religious motivations. If someone wants to put forward a teleological argument, it will be dealt with on its merits or lack thereof.
As I said, teleology and ID are different creatures. Nobody is dismissing teleology as just a religious argument. Teleology has its own special criticisms, some of which (such as the problem of infinite regress) are addressed in arguments with regards to the teleological claims of ID. ID has other things going on, one of which is the religious agenda, and those things are criticised for what they are.
Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.
I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
ID has asked no awkward questions. It raises some serious issues about the public understanding of science and what scientists should be doing towards presentation. However, as far as the actual science goes, Intelligent Design simply distorts and lies about current knowledge.
If you can find some awkward questions that ID has raised...I'd be interested in hearing them.
All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design.
And implementation - another thing ID proponents never seem to want to speak about in front of scientists. When you ask a ID proponent about the implementation they will say that Intelligent Design is only about the study of design, purpose or directive principle in nature (teleology). When they are looking for funding and support, then the Designer starts getting an identity.