[MacDorcha]

I will point this out to you as well:

Where does it mention "Creationism"? Or "Young Earth"?

It mentions ID, which points to a logical thought about patterns that can be observed.

Conversly, we cannot witness a species changing from one phenotype to another. Where's the "observation" in that? Evolution is also, NOT scientific. At least, if ID isn't.

Gotta hold the same standards, ya know?

ID belongs in the class if evolution does.

The rant about "creationism" was knee-jerking.

[Quick1]

Evolution is also, NOT scientific. At least, if ID isn't.

Exactly how is Evolution not scientific? ID cannot be used to predict anything, and is not falsifiable. The same cannot be said of Evolution.

[Avenger]

Conversly, we cannot witness a species changing from one phenotype to another. Where's the "observation" in that? Evolution is also, NOT scientific. At least, if ID isn't.

---

Wrong. This just means that the theory of evolution as it stands is not correct. The very fact you can use observables in the world to refute it is exactly why it is a scientific theory (albeit an imperfect one) and therefore belongs in a science class. There is no scientific theory that is perfect - always an approximation. Newton's theory of gravity worked quite well for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and found some small corrections that made it more precise. Does that mean that Newton's theory of gravitation did not deserve to be taught as science classes from 1679 to 1915? Doubtlessly there will be further corrections to the theory of gravitation as time goes on. This is how science works. If we demanded perfection from our scientific theories there would be no progress at all. The value of a scientific theory lies in its ability to enable us to make predictions about the world. This is the same property that allows us to refute scientific theories and/or improve them. Articles of faith such as intelligent design do not posses such properties and therefore have no place in science classes.