If it not arguable, then why are you arguing it? I'm merely pointing out an interesting logical paradox. In order to get rid of the paradox, the anti-IDers only have to prove their case by getting rid of all ID tools (that is, if they don't want to accept ID). Otherwise, what you have done is already put faith and religion into the classroom - the faith of the anti-IDers.
Interesting. Since I have not argued it why do you claim I did?