Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Especially since no one can say what the gaps are or what exactly is the evidence against evolution. And now Behe is backtracking on his "irreducible complexity" concept. And he claims that ID requires "no physical evidence".
How do you teach science without reference to any physical evidence???
"What do you think this statement says to a bunch of teenagers; Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact,"
Seems like teenagers would be old enough to understand the difference between a fact and a theory.
"has inexplicable "gaps,"
Are you seriously claiming that the theory of evolution has answered all questions?
"and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information."
I don't know what's in that book, but presuming for the sake of argument that it is not worthwhile, is it consonant with academic freedom to prevent people from recommending it? Surely the correct course is to advance reasoned argument showing why it is not worthwhile.
"Especially since no one can say what the gaps are"
Oh, now, the last time I looked responsible scientists admitted that questions remained.
"or what exactly is the evidence against evolution."
ID doesn't deny evolution.
"And he claims that ID requires "no physical evidence".
Why should it?
"How do you teach science without reference to any physical evidence???"
Who said belief in God was science?
On the other hand, lots of people seem to think that you can use science to throw doubt on the existence of God, and that isn't science either.
The only point of difference between ID and atheistic Darwinism is that the ID proponent says, "God is behind it all," and the atheist says, "No, He isn't." That's not a scientific dispute, much as atheists try to cloak themselves in the mantle of science. It's theology, on the part of the atheist as much as on the part of the believer.
If there were a way to keep both points of view out of the science classroom, I'd be content with that. However, there's not, and I don't think the classroom should be an exclusive preserve for proselytizing by atheists. If atheists are going to proselytize there, and they are, I want a few seconds too.