ID theory has not enough evidence for it to be taught in school. Maybe if there is more evidence for it, but little or none exists for it.
No one taught continental drift theory in school in the 1800's. Not enough evidence for it. Scientists are open minded and will embrace ID if there is evidence for it. As of now, there is almost none.
Teaching ID in schools would be nonesense and a bastardization of the word science.
Some of the evidence for continental drift was evident as soon as accurate maps of the South Atlantic coasts were available, which was in the 1800s. Abundant additional evidence was presented by Wegener and others in the early 20th century. Yet orthodox geologists continued to reject it, just as dogmatic Darwinists continue to reject anything which challenges their pet theory. Ruthlessly suppressing anything but an orthodoxy is not science! What should really be asked is why Darwinists are so obsessed with having their theory taught at the secondary or even elementary level. As a trained scientist, I know that knowledge of evolution is not necessary in most areas or science. One could even get along in geology without it, although one would have to keep one's ignorance hidden, and recognize that life did progress through geologic time. This doctrine is really being pushed, not so much because it is needed to succeed in life, but because of its absolute necessity to the determinist-materialist worldview which underlies socialism.
Some of the evidence for continental drift was evident as soon as accurate maps of the South Atlantic coasts were available, which was in the 1800s. Abundant additional evidence was presented by Wegener and others in the early 20th century. Yet orthodox geologists continued to reject it, just as dogmatic Darwinists continue to reject anything which challenges their pet theory. Ruthlessly suppressing anything but an orthodoxy is not science! What should really be asked is why Darwinists are so obsessed with having their theory taught at the secondary or even elementary level. As a trained scientist, I know that knowledge of evolution is not necessary in most areas or science. One could even get along in geology without it, although one would have to keep one's ignorance hidden, and recognize that life did progress through geologic time. This doctrine is really being pushed, not so much because it is needed to succeed in life, but because of its absolute necessity to the determinist-materialist worldview which underlies socialism.
"ID theory has not enough evidence for it to be taught in school. Maybe if there is more evidence for it, but little or none exists for it."
Translation: "I have successfully ignored the evidence in favor of ID."
Read Spetner, Behe, and Dembski for mountains of evidence for ID. See the links at the bottom of the online version of my article.
ID is a set of questions towards the theory of evolution, it is not a full blown theory. It is quite simply a smell test.
Staytrue said: "Teaching ID in schools would be nonesense (sic) and a bastardization of the word science."
Would Newton's quote be appropriate for a science class? Or would it be more appropriate to censor his work?
No more so than the theory of evolution. There is no reason for that to be included in any science program. There is no evidence of evolution. If there is, present it.