That would be because ID advocates never say what it is they believe. I have been asking for over a month for an ID advocate to spell out what they would teach if they were in charge of schools. Saying there are gaps in scientific explanations is almost a tautaulogy. It's a pretty short lesson plan.
And it doesn't suggest any research that isn't already being done. Filling gaps in knowledge is what science does.
Design is a given. Natural selection is the designing agent. If you have a better candidate for the designer, please describe the characteristics of the designer. What are the design objectives, the methods and processes by which new species are created? What kinds of evidence should we be looking for that would not be expected by or consistent with natural selection?
I would have schools teach evolution as the current "best guess" of scientists but point out that (A) evolution does not necessarily preclude a role for divine intervention in the creation or development of life and (B) that evolutionary theory cannot always explain how things developed but assumes that it did. A good overview of what "theory" means, the scientific method, and how science works would also be a good subject for this class.
Saying there are gaps in scientific explanations is almost a tautaulogy. It's a pretty short lesson plan.
It's a reality that many students are not exposed to. I would say that at least one class should be spent on how science works. Intelligent Design and the possible role of religious creation theories in the creation or development of life should be part of that class.
And it doesn't suggest any research that isn't already being done. Filling gaps in knowledge is what science does.
Actually, it does. It suggests looking at living organisms for irreducible complexity and and trying to explain the evolution of specific biological systems and features rather than to simply assume that it happened. Even if such research didn't ultimately solve the issue, it would help further our understanding of how things work and relate to each other.
Design is a given. Natural selection is the designing agent. If you have a better candidate for the designer, please describe the characteristics of the designer.
The characteristics of the designer is pretty basic -- intelligence and planning. This is pretty integral to most of the analogies used by creationists including the watch and the turtle on a fence post. It doesn't need to get any more religious than that. Really.
What are the design objectives, the methods and processes by which new species are created?
The design objectives are the current life forms on Earth or possibly some future life form that doesn't exist yet. The methods and processes don't have to be known or even speculated on and could range from constant divine manipulation by an extra-dimensional entity that can observe and manipulate our universe to a planning and unfolding model where the entire universe was created to snap into a particular shape when it was done, in which case it would be indistinguishable from the scientific theory.
What's the point of mentioning it, then? Because it makes it clear to children that science and God are not necessarily incompatible. The whole reason why this is so controversial is that a lot of supporters of evolution take their argument a step further and argue that evolution disproves God or any divine agency. As such, science becomes the enemy of religion at a dogmatic level. If evolutionists could bear to allow the possibility of the hand of God in life on Earth, which is all ID really does, they could stop tying evolution to being anti-religious.
There was a classic Bloom County cartoon where Oliver talks about how the Big Bang started it all. Opus asks him, "So what existed before the Big Bang?" Oliver replies, "Yes, sir, a really Big Bang!" because that question can be answered. At that point, is it any more or less valid to see God's hand there than "no God"?
What kinds of evidence should we be looking for that would not be expected by or consistent with natural selection?
See above. Science should also engage the idea of probability and stop assuming that possibility == probability or certainty.