So then, what are you arguing about? You are against teaching ID but for teaching "providential theism" in the classroom? Either way there is a Designer, is there not? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The only possible difference I can see is that you PD'ers want the atheists to like you so you attack your fellow Theistic evolutionists and ignore the fact that the most dogmatic Darwinists themselves insist that G-d is "superfluous," G-d forbid. I certainly never see you PD'ers scolding dogmatic atheist Darwinists.
I suggest you read my Chanukkah post on the "religion" board.
The important difference is that only the IDers claim that their belief is scientific. Providential theism, like ID, *may* be true, and is a perfectly legitimate belief, but it doesn't try to worm its way out of religion/philosophy classes and into the science classroom. ID is trying to get into the science classroom before being accepted by science in general. I cannot think of another area of scientific study where the *first* publication was a school textbook.
Science education.
You are against teaching ID but for teaching "providential theism" in the classroom?
Not in the science classroom, no. PD is a theological idea, not a scientific one. It should be taught in a philosophy class or, better yet, at Sunday school or at home by the parents.
Either way there is a Designer, is there not?
Yes, but ID makes pseudo-scientific, empirically false claims about Him, whereas PD does not and is in fact perfectly compatible with modern science.
I certainly never see you PD'ers scolding dogmatic atheist Darwinists.
You haven't been looking, then. Kennenth Miller, the author of this article, has done it repeatedly. You should read his book.