[father_elijah]

Very cute -- but there is much more to intelligent design theory than than say the Flat Earth Society. The largest problem is that ID theory requires a nexus with Philosophy, and most of the scientistic establishment wishes to live in a tidy divorce from the rest of human experience and learning.

[jennyp]

The largest problem is that ID theory requires a nexus with Philosophy, ...

What do you mean by that?

[longshadow]

Very cute -- but there is much more to intelligent design theory than than say the Flat Earth Society.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy.

Both are alternative attempts to explain phenomona, neither of which are embraced by most mainstream experts in their respective fields.

Here's another example: should we clutter up the minds of High School science students by teaching them Alternative Anti-relativity Theories? There isn't even time to do a good job of teaching them about Relativity as it is; if we take more time away to present them with "alternatives" that are NOT embraced by the vast majority of experts in the field, we do that student a grave dis-service.

For the moment, ID isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no useful predictions, it provides no explanatory framework, and it is not falsifiable. Hence, it isn't a theory.

[dheretic]

Very cute -- but there is much more to intelligent design theory than than say the Flat Earth Society. The largest problem is that ID theory requires a nexus with Philosophy, and most of the scientistic establishment wishes to live in a tidy divorce from the rest of human experience and learning.

Actually the problem is that ID has not been established as a coherent scientific theory. I am neither a creationist nor evolutionist. I would given credence to ID if ID advocates would create a coherent and defensible scientific theory form of ID. The problem is that ID proponents cannot seem to understand that the Bible isn't sufficient for proving something in a scientific debate.