"Class, from time to time there are groups that object to evolution because it doesn't conform to their personal religious beliefs. Those objections have all been based on emotion and not reason, and have not had any scientific merit whatsoever."
I think you could come up with more than that. Here's some help, compliments of ARN.org:
Critical Analysis of Evolution, Material for Students
Online Articles of Notable Interest
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Enjoy!
Interesting. The "peer review" in those articles is laughable at best.
ID doesn't match the basic requirements for a scientific theory. As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.
Once there is another theory that meets the basic scientific requirements, then it should be discussed. "Teaching the controversy" is a desperate move made by discredited people who have admitted that their "theory" is worthless.
I noticed that you inadvertently forgot to include the substantive and overwhelmingly convincing Numerology Evidence, also complements of ARN.
Your first article from the Discovery Institute has been withdrawn by the publisher.
Aside from that, the other articles are God of the Gaps stuff. At best they simply point out that science doesn't know everything.
Take any of your gaps articles, assume it is good science and what do you get? Another opportunity for mainstream research to discover the natural cause of the phenomenon.
Can you name a phenomenon studied by science, where science hasn't made progress by assuming natural causes?