In dealing with the people trying to get their religion into science class via the trojan horse of ID, one has to deal with the dishonest nature of what they are trying to do.
Science does not have an explanation for everything and it is not possible for science to explain everything.
Science classes are about what science is and does and can explain.
That doesn't mean there is nothing outside of the physical sciences.
That doesn't mean science should now be about what is outside of science.
When you mention logic and philosophy the atheists immediately shriek that it isn't science.
We don't have to shriek it. We can just say it. Science uses logic, especially that subset known as "mathematics," quite routinely. Science is historically connected to philosophy but does not actually use it.
How heavy are the chains in Plato's cave?
How does Superman fly?
Well, evolution does explain the mechanism but not the origin. ID attempts to study that.
Actually, ID not only refuses to address the origin of the Designer, it refuses to address the identity of same, or just what He/he designed, or when, or how often, or by what means. It's "not that kind of theory."
It is a lie to automatically staple ID to theology. Those that insist are no more rational than liberals and their theories.
Do we have to wait for the ID-ists to admit it? They've done it repeatedly. Johnson (the Wedge Document), Behe, Dembski.
Futhermore, if ID were in fact avoiding evolution's turf, it wouldn't consist in all technical arguments as "Evolution cannot explain ... (irreducible complexity, biological information)" and a host of recycled, discredited creationist mantras (no transitional forms, 2nd law of thermo, radiometric dating is flawed, Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryos). It wouldn't patently be the same crowd who thirty years ago was buying Henry Morris books about the Genesis Flood.
All of these screeches against evolution are flawed in fact or logic. None of them have enough soundness or honesty to be given time in science class. Outside of lies and misrepresentations about another theory being wrong, ID has no content to offer. (What real theory in the history of science was ever about nothing so much as another theory being wrong some way, somehow?) The vanguard of the "movement," Seattle's Discovery Institute, admits that ID as yet has no classroom-ready content. That's why we have to teach "the controversy," the aforementioned package of willful misrepresentation and self-delusion.
Correct. The basic tenets of ID are:
1. We all evolved from a simple organism.
2. The earth is billions of years old.
3. The Designer is not necessarily God. (Isn't that blasphemy?)