"There are lot of things taught in school that are vague or two sided; nobody seems to get into a tizzy if we call our holiday Presidents day instead of Lincoln or Washington’s Birthday."
I don't have a problem with ID being taught in school; it could be taught in a philosophy or religious studies class - it could also be taught in a science course, but only as an example of a non-scientific theory. Why is it non-scientific? First because it is not testable: it is impossible to design a test which potentially falsifies the existence of an intelligent creator. Why is this the case? It has to do with the nature of random sequences and the fact that it is mathematically impossible to differentiate a random sequence from a non-random but highly complex sequence. The second show-stopper is that there is no scientific definition of "intelligence." How can we possibly study intelligent design when we don't even know how to define intelligence. It does not belong in a science class. If there are weaknesses with the way that evolution is taught in school then those need to be corrected. We don't solve the problem by adding more nonsense to the science education of our children.
Tell me how "we descended from apes" is testable.
You think God is "nonsense"? Many, many would disagree with you. I know you think you have all the answers, but you don't - no one does. What are you afraid of?
Ok I can accept why people would not want ID taught in science class but rather a philosophy class, since many don’t regard this as science, , but why make a big deal about it, there are many things in science class that might be better of taught in other disciplines, math and spelling are two examples that always plagued me which had nothing to do wheather I grasped the science or not. So why not become so vocal about a "non-science subject" if that is how ID is percieved?
Somehow I think that it is not agenda to discount ID as a science but to discount ID or the existence of a creator all together, which seems like such a waist of time, since there a so many other things to do in life…
I do not believe you read the article. The author specifically refuted this objection. It is the conceit of the Darwinians to deny the legitimacy of every question that falls outside their myopic position.
We do not know how to define intelligence because the Darwinian choke-hold on scientific thought has not allowed us to develop a scientific model that even asks the question.
Darwinianism has become an antiquated dogma preventing science from moving into areas that it denies, such as intelligence theory.
One of the things the law of unintended consequences may produce in this case is that it will be presented in science classes...and the result will be resentful scientists using the most beautifully sarcastic tone of voice while they read the relevant paragraphs, then follow that with something to the effect of "now let's get down to real science."
Rather than enhancing faith, students will be turned off, thinking only dweebs and feebs would buy that. (yes I've been around high school students)
The absolute last thing I want is the schools interfering the the religious education of my kids. And no, teaching science does not do that unless ones' faith is very, very, superficial.
"Why is it non-scientific? First because it is not testable: it is impossible to design a test which potentially falsifies ..."
--->
Astronomers, Cosmologists, and other Physicists have been working on explaining certain other non-biological natural phenomena which similarly have no 100% bullet-proof "testable", way to do experiments and recover definitive data from those tests. For one very simple example, consider the problem of what happens to matter and information when it enters a "Black Hole" ... yet we endorse this type of research as being "science" though there is (apparently) no physical way to verify such hypotheses.
Many other high energy physics and cosmology endeavors are similarly working in the blind most of the time.
What is the difference between such research and ID hypotheses and research?