"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.
The"focus" would be the theology classes. My bad for not clarifying there, but I have stated so in previous posts.
Not to mention that a test for design is equally problematic. Would you reasonably conclude, for example, if you saw a mountain with a human face on it that this was the product of design? Well, yes if that mountain is Mt. Rushmore, and no if it is the Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. Those who say design is obvious have failed to really consider the problem. What is needed is a test that distinguishes design from non-design with reference only to the observable characteristics of the item under test, and no reference to the history of the item or any external data. As my example shows, this is very problematic.