Then your opinion on that matter is worse than "largely speculative", it is entirely ignorant of the methods by which the age of the Earth has been determined by an overwhelming amount of evidence.
[ID is based on the assumption that complexity can only come from intelligence.]
ID concludes, not assumes, that such complexity can only come via intelligent design.
So you falsely assume, anyway. Anyone who has bothered to actually study the subject (which leaves out the IDers) is familiar with various natural processes which bring about the increase of complexity without the intervention of "intelligent design".
And this is where the faulty "conclusion of ID" falls flat on its face. It childishly reasons that "if something is complex, it must have been designed, since that is the only way [that I know of] that complexity can arise." But the this is simply the "argument from incredulity", a known fallacy -- there are *other* ways that complexity can and does arise. So the whole gradeschool argument for ID is transparently wrong, and flies in the face of what is already known.
So why do you want to teach this simplistic and fallacious crap in school as if it were science?
That sounds like some of Von Daniken's writing. There's a big rock in the jungle and since I can't figure out how it got there, it proves that an ancient astronaut put it there.
To bring down the evil house of materialistic science. To restore the glorious Dark Ages. To impose theocratic tyranny. To end, once and for all, the satanic perversion known as reason.
Any other questions?
Evolutionists have never established any proof that any species has been trnasformed into another. They can only offer 'possibilities'.