I think we're essentially looking towards the same pint, just from opposite sides of the river.
I hold that evolution AND ID should both be held off until higher (more focussed) classes.
It should get the same (proper) treatment gravity has always gotten.
"I hold that evolution AND ID should both be held off until higher (more focussed) classes."
No, ID is not a scientific theory and therefore should not be included. Various scientific (i.e. able to make predictions that can or have been verified by experiment or observation) theories of how the various forms of life on Earth came to be are of scientific interest even when they are wrong or approximate because this still gives us direction on how the theories might be improved. With ID there's not really much to say - people could argue endlessly about whether this or that thing is really intelligently designed but ultimately it comes down to opinions. In order to be able to proceed scientifically at all in regards to "intelligent design" we would first need to be able to define "intelligence." Is a amoeba intelligent? Is a dog intelligent? Is a computer intelligent? Could we say that the universe is intelligent since it contains all these "intelligent" organisms? The definition of "intelligence" is problematic and is a show-stopper in regards to the scientific study of ID.