Nonetheless, they're right. ID is not a legitimate scientific theory; it's a poorly articulated and vague sentiment that 'Someone must have done it (nudge nudge, wink wink, we know who Someone is, notice I used upper case)'. It's nothing more than a Trojan Horse for creationism.
Hey if 80%+ of the population trying believes in some form of divine being, this shouldn't really be that hard a sell job. But the evolutionary track people (i.e., the self-admitted godless "intellectuals" of our society) have so much succeeded in shoving the Darwin theory down everybody's throats over the past 100 years that it is "de facto" in the fields of biology, zoology, anthropology, botany, and more. But it can't work! And they're so blinded that they can't even entertain a moment's thought of considering a critical look at the core belief system that has been erected.
Aw, c'mon. The ID'ers have a very scientific sounding buzzword, "irreducible complexity". Of course, there are things that in Darwins day that were irreducibly complex that children now play with in their science labs.
Teach ID all you want, just not in science class.
IMHO, it's not even subtle enough to be referred to as the Trojan horse for creationism. You cannot have intelligence with a being possessing said intelligence.
I still have yet to understand why those who believe in creation feel the need to underwrite their faith with a scientific theory. I always thought that's why they called it "faith".
...and your problem with children being taught the possiblity of origin alternatives other than Darwinism, be it God's design or that of a crowd of space monkeys stoned on comet dust, is what, exactly?
So what if it is? Do not the states (read people) have a right to teach their children their beliefs?
Man, I can't decide who I disdain more, the ACLU or the Luddites.