Of course it is, just as 'we all decended from fish, so even though there are large gaps in logic and it seems stupid, we don't want to hear anything else.'
Actually, intelligent design seems simple and intuitively plausible:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
You guys don't WANT to discuss and debate. You want to supress and protect.
And to suggest that the emotional side of the argument is ID is absolutely ludicrious.
What is the actual, logical reason that ID should not be MENTIONED in schools? I'd like to hear it.
Of course it is, just as 'we all decended from fish, so even though there are large gaps in logic and it seems stupid, we don't want to hear anything else.'
Once again, a creationist lies about the substance of the ToE. By now, we should be used to this.
What is the actual, logical reason that ID should not be MENTIONED in schools?
I never said it shouldn't be mentioned in schools. Of course it should.
ID should be mentioned in science classes only to be debunked. Because it's not even vaguely scientific. Students should be shown why treating pretending that it's science is silly.
ID should also be mentioned in history classes, preferably in the context of Soviet "ideological-outcome science." Because that's exactly what it is - ignoring evidence that doesn't serve the ideology.
ID belongs in philosophy and comparative religion classes. Not anywhere else.