So I think that we have come to some agreement. We cannot really be totally sure that "magic" is not the "true" answer. However, we assume that natural phenomena have natural explanations. That's what I meant when I talked about science seeking useful explanations rather than true ones. Given a sufficiently powerful magician, any observation can be said to arise from "magic". Hence this isn't a very useful explanation. However, substitute God, or some intelligent designer for the magician and the result is identical. Unless we develop some definitive test for design, the ID explanation for the development of the diversity of life is not a particularly useful one scientifically. Of course, it still makes for a terrific philosophical debate, which is where I believe students should be exposed to ID, rather than teaching ID as a scientific idea.
"Of course, it still makes for a terrific philosophical debate, which is where I believe students should be exposed to ID, rather than teaching ID as a scientific idea."
I still feel that since science is a philosophy, other branchs should be "allowed" as discussion pieces. Given that, I believe the teacher (if sufficiently qualified) should make it known that the focus of a science class is as we have discussed: finding the "useful" applications of our discoveries.
It should be made abundantly clear, however, that science is STILL a philosophy. And the school of thought regarding said philosophy should be addressed early on.
IMO, this would do wonders for clearing up this whole "Evolution *vs* Creationism" nonsense. They don't *have* to disagree. They just *have* to be addressed in different manners.