Leading scientists may be a bit misleading on the subject. I don't believe the question of whether there is direction or purpose in evolution is a proper question for science. A hypothesis that there is (or isn't) direction in evolution is unfalsifiable. I think that this is just scientists giving their own opinions. Actually, directionlessness is no more an inherent part of evolution than is atheism. As far as teaching creationism in science, it still isn't science because it's unfalsifiable. I do not say that it shouldn't be taught in schools, just not as a part of a science class. (Perhaps some type of comparitive religion class would be an appropriate venue)
Well, I'm glad that you have no problem with Intellegent Design being taught in the schools. That is all I was ever trying to say. I have no problem with evolution also being taught, but for it to be presented as "the way that life began" is not right.
As far as intellegent design being taught in science classes, I would disagree that it is not "scientific." Biology may not really deal with the issue, but phyics and chemistry certainly do.
In conclusion, there is alot of "science" in the theory of intellegent design.