The central problem with ID, and the reason it should not, in its present form, be taught is that it asserts that certain things cannot happen. that kind of thinking shuts down curiosity, a terrible thing to do to children. Much better to have people trying to prove things can be done.
Perhaps you can point me to a certified ID proponent who has discovered a useful medicine and has credited his or her ID thought processes to the line of research leading to the discovery.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the credentials of the players involved with the dates in Yockey's message: John von Neumann and Niels Bohr. Hubert P. Yockey, PhD Berkeley is an information theorist, a physicist and was Chief of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Reactor Branch. Yockey's work is textbook material and von Neumann's work is cited by the likes of Chaitin, Patten and Rocha.
Just like the work of Euclid, Newton, Riemann, Einstein and Schwarzchild does not carry an expiration date, neither does the work of Bohr, von Neumann and Yockey.
Yockey has demonstrated his point. If you care to argue with him, you can join that message board and make your case directly.
The central problem with ID, and the reason it should not, in its present form, be taught is that it asserts that certain things cannot happen. that kind of thinking shuts down curiosity, a terrible thing to do to children.
The acceptance of Intelligent Design would have no more effect of shutting down curiosity than the Anthropic Principle currently does.
BTW, I don't think either is reason to quit asking questions!