That's easy. Evolution is science. ID is creationism pretending to be science and demanding equal time. Do you actually expect scientists to ignore such a fraud? ID has no research, no methodology, and no discoveries. It is simply creationism lite, another (failed) attempt to get religion taught in science classes. But it pretends to be science, and tries to "wedge" its way into the scientific arena.
Science is greatly limited regarding evidence for either position, and science is not the last word because science does not have all the evidence and can never attain it. What evidence they have, should be presented with no preconceived theory, or opinion of where the evidence they possess leads.
There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution, but no evidence for ID. And you want facts taught with "no preconceived theory, or opinion of where the evidence they possess leads?" That's lunacy. Science is facts and theories. Heinlein said it best:
For scientists to teach facts and omit theories, as you request, would be to censor science for religious reasons. That would be a sad thing to see.Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Christians and believers having read in Genesis that the world was created already old, that the chicken came first with the egg inside it, that the fruit tree was created mature with the fruit on the limbs and the seed inside the fruit, see scientists as two dimensional creatures blindly feeling their way around attempting to understand a three dimensional world.
Scientists see a small number of believers as using their particular religious belief to censor scientific research. Most Christians do not reject science; its only a small percentage with a particular belief.
It doesn't help when science says that when the earth was young, long before man arrived, that the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground, when Genesis says that from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, it had never rained, but the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground.
Mist that rose from the ground? I don't remember that from my science classes. Do you have a citation (from a reliable source, not a creationist website--they tend to distort the evidence to make it fit their preconceived beliefs)?
It does no good to point out that man and cockroaches have a common enzyme therefore it should indicate some branching off from each other during some period of evolution, when it would be ridiculous for an Intelligent Designer not to use the same needed chemicals in more than one creature to make that creature function as the designer wants it to. Why would an Intelligent Designer need to keep reinventing the wheel, when He already has on hand what He needs to plug in to make a creation tick?
That is the problem. How would you know what an intelligent designer does? You have no evidence, and no practical method to get any evidence (you have no instruments to measure the supernatural). All you can observe is the natural world, and that is readily explained by the scientific method. Your alternative would be to rely on your belief, and to force science to be silent where there is a conflict.
I think science has come to a point where it becomes purely political to take a position either way. They can no longer simply write off Intelligent Design and only support the Theory of Evolution. Let science present what it does know and then let the individual study the evidence and make up his own mind without agenda creeping into it.
Science follows where the data leads. There is a huge amount of data supporting the theory of evolution and no data supporting ID. So, science is presenting what it does know.
It is belief which is trying to censor science, and that is certain to cause a reaction from scientists. You should not be surprised at this.
Everything you just attacked ID with can also be applied to Evolutionists. Both have their agendas and neither is proveable.
So why not just put out what is known and leave it to the individual to take his own stand with no undue influence from either? Because evolution is an unproven theory both should be taught. ID is just as valid a theory as evolution and swrim as you may there it is.