[RightWhale]

Evolution is a method. Teachers and journalists refer to it as a theory, which is perhaps as Darwin and his contemporaries thought of it. As such, evolution is the province of philosophy moreso than of science. As for science, evolution makes things very difficult if the intent is to figure everything out about the world we can see. ID would make true science as we commonly envision it possible. It's a paradox unless we think of science as engineering.

[Rurudyne]

"Evolution is a method. Teachers and journalists refer to it as a theory, which is perhaps as Darwin and his contemporaries thought of it. As such, evolution is the province of philosophy moreso than of science. As for science, evolution makes things very difficult if the intent is to figure everything out about the world we can see. ID would make true science as we commonly envision it possible. It's a paradox unless we think of science as engineering."

I would counter that it is naturalism that is the philosophy. Intelligent design can play a positive role IF that role is to give cover to scientist to admit that they don't know what they don't know.

As for what's taught in the classroom, I'd have no problem with giving kids a glimpse of what actually passes as the theory of evolution ... however, I'd prefer to see the money spent teaching (for example) kids how to understand lawyer-speak (their "monopoly" over the language of law being the basis for the profession's excessive power). That could have a truly transforming effect on our society.