That is exactly the point, A-G: Intelligent Design is not a systematic theory that can be taught. It is -- it seems to me -- more of an inventory of problems that neo-Darwinist theory hasn't touched. At least it has not done so, so far.
It seems Darwinist theorists have two choices: They can outright deny the insights of ID that point to the seeming incompleteness of natural selection in certain key areas of evolutionary explanation, or they can embrace them, and see what further progress they can make from the new insights.
I don't think the proponents of Darwinist evolution have any right to stifle new insights that might prove useful to its own researches in the long run.
I've said it before, so I hope I'm not boring folks to tears to say it again: I have little doubt that the universe evolves, and all things in it evolve. That makes me an evolutionist, though not necessarily a Darwinist. Darwin had invaluable insights into the processes of natural selection, species adaptation to environmental change, and so forth. But he does not deal with questions of life, particularly its inception -- that is, how it arose in the first place.
Since these are vital questions of perennial interest to the human mind (if history has any testimony to give), why censor them? In classrooms, where eager young minds and proto-scientists tend to gather?
To which a Darwinist might reply: because they aren't "scientific questions." But if science is about giving us a truthful description of the universe and all things in it, how can it dispense with such questions and be faithful to its mission?
It seems Darwinist theorists have two choices: They can outright deny the insights of ID that point to the seeming incompleteness of natural selection in certain key areas of evolutionary explanation, or they can embrace them, and see what further progress they can make from the new insights.
I don't think the proponents of Darwinist evolution have any right to stifle new insights that might prove useful to its own researches in the long run.