"Competition" is welcome in the form of *falsifiable* hypotheses. ID does not meet this standard and is therefore not a valid scientific theory. It is not even a hypothesis.
If schools want to teach ID in comparative religion class or philosophy, that is OK with me. I draw the line at calling it science, because it is not.
A list of complaints about the modern synthesis of Darwinism is not a theory--no matter how long it is or how many people sign on to it.
You can't hide God. People understand he is the creator. I think most people have no problem with adaptation, which is of course observable. But stating humans descended from apes, well, a lot of people have a problem with that. Still, I think ID will get in.
"Competition is welcome in the form of *falsifiable* hypotheses. ID does not meet this standard and is therefore not a valid scientific theory. It is not even a hypothesis."
As I asked in #26, should we ban teaching string theory in physics for the same reason?
I confess to a certain degree of ignorance in what the science of intelligent design purports to be. I am a Christian, but I don't consider it to be a matter of science-- it is a matter of faith.
That said, the development of ID as a science should not be squelched. It appears to be in its infancy qua science, and is deserving of a chance to germinate, and perhaps develop falsiable theories. My recollection of the treatment of most new fields of science is that they are met with ridicule and attack (often even physical attack and torture) as they develop, this attack coming by the "established" sciences. Geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism, but only reluctantly. I am sure others can give other and better examples.
I don't suggest that science should be abandoned in favor of the study of ID, but I am not sure even ID people suggest that. It seems to me that much scientific achievement is made upon "hunches" or stabs in the dark, thereafter proven (and more often disproven).
Does God exist? I believe so. Can it be proven? I don't know, but should the effort be squelched?
Finally, the nature of the argument on this topic, as I lurk on these threads from time to time, usually quickly devolves into shrieks and insults, which I usually take as a sign of weakness in any argument. I am sure many are frustrated, but if one cannot formulate a logical and measured response even to that which one believes is lunacy, might I suggest you take a drink and come back calmer....