So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and
Science is about keeping an open mind to all possibilities where the universe has not been explained. Furthermore one cannot do science without an orderly universe, and an orderly universe is fairly significant evidence that intelligent design was involved in bringing it about.
. . . you are underqualified to judge my teaching skills.
Where science is concerned you appear underqualified to teach insofar as you appear all-too-willing to cut off free inquiry. Where philosophy is concerned, I'll leave it an open question.
Science is handling that just fine without mandated supervision from incompetent non-scientists with painfully obvious axes to grind.
Furthermore one cannot do science without an orderly universe, and an orderly universe is fairly significant evidence that intelligent design was involved in bringing it about.
I am not aware that this is a well-respected fundamental scientific principle such as to suggest it must be taught in a science class alongside, say, the theory of gravitation.
So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and