Okay...I'm going to ask this ONE MORE TIME, and then I give up. What EXACTLY is the reason that ID should not be mentioned in schools? I'm still waiting for you guys to stop calling me an a--hole and start the debate.
It has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field. While that doesn't by itself make it wrong, it's the only criterion by which school boards, administrators and teachers can judge what to teach and what not to teach.
Can you find individual experts who dissent? Perhaps. But the same is true of astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, geomancy...all manner of obsolete, medieval superstition, in fact...but we don't teach them on an equal footing with science.
Mention ID in schools, yes, but numbered among the list of rejected, old ideas.
Oh, it goes in the schools. I've always said it belongs in Abnormal Psychology. It just doesn't belong in biology classes.
It shouldn't be mentioned in science class because it doesn't make the grade to be a scientific theory. Even its leading exponent, Dr Michael Behe, under oath in the Dover trial agreed that if the scientific definition of theory were widened (as he wishes) to encompass ID then astrology would also have to be classified as science. Dr Behe's definition of "theory" is more or less the rest of science's definition of "hypothesis". What's your uncle's opinion about astrology, then?
OTOH you accuse me of a viewpoint that I have never espoused. I'd be happy to have ID mentioned in a philosophy class, or a religious education class, where it belongs. Perhaps if religious education were permitted in US public schools this debate would go away.