It's simply a different assumption of the same evidence. Because it might point to an ID, an alien, or something else other than evolution it is called a lie.
It's more than just a different assumption of the same evidence. It is a complete re-defining of basic scientific terms. It is the marketing of the philosophy of ID to fundamentalist church groups even before the research was complete, and there is the research itself.
The research papers take one of three paths. A philosophical overview, and two different styles of reviewing other scientists' work. No original research.
A philosophical overview is not by itself a science research paper. Most of Einstein's papers were largely philosophical, but he also included what he called "thought experiments." But in order to do these experiments, he first had to take established mathematical formulas for certain features of what he was studying (the physics of motion in that case) that had been developed under common conditions, and extend them to uncommon conditions. Even then, they were not established until experimental scientists acheived hose uncommon conditions and confirmed Einstein's "predictions." ID philosophical overviews do not include any quantified formulas, do not predict findings in uncommon conditions, and in fact contain no science. They remain entirely within thevphilosophical realm of teleology.
Similarly, very often an analysis of several similar experiments by varied researchers, comparing various aspects such as sample size and selection, and adherence to double-blind protocols, etc. can be helpful in determining why the results don't always agree. Sometimes this results in confirming one of two competing hypotheses, but more often it results in a recognition for more experiments with tighter control on the protocols. ID research institutes put out papers that, on the surface, look like these but on close examination simply look for any inconclusive results and use them to propose "Goddidit." Teleology is not science, and science should not be teleology.
The other kind of review paper we find in ID has no counterpart in science. In fact, one of the primary purposes of peer review is to weed out this kind of inaccuracies. In this kind of paper the "researcher combs through various independent papers looking for support of his hypothesis. Whenever he finds something encouraging, he "cleans it up," trimming away phrases and surrounding sentences that might "confuse" the reader into thinking that the originalauthor would not agree with what author of the review claims he meant. We call these papers "quote mines," and if the reviewer does not retract them, we rightly call him a liar.
There is no political, fiscal or religious motivation. Why would a fellow scientist want to mislead anyone? It's about finding the truth and learning about our world.
Then why do they lecture in fundamentalist churches for big fees, ans target Bible Belt school boards to incorporate their ideas?
They say if new evidence or conclusions change the evolution theory, they would change with it. Well, that doesn't seem to be the case.
There is not a single ID argument that has not been discussed for over 100 years by Creationists and debnked that long ago.