[Antoninus]

We're not the ones trying to dishonestly shove a non-scientific piece of conjecture into public school science classrooms despite a total lack of any peer reviewed research on the subject.

No, you're the ones trying to prevent ANY questioning of the ToE from going on without a storm of personal attacks and immediate insinuations that the individual doing the questioning is a "creationist."

A true scientist welcomes challenges to their pet theories--indeed, they should be challenging those theories themselves, rather than attacking those who do. That's how scientific knowledge moves forward.

[Dimensio]

No, you're the ones trying to prevent ANY questioning of the ToE from going on without a storm of personal attacks and immediate insinuations that the individual doing the questioning is a "creationist."

No one is doing this. The major objections are to trying to shove non-scientific pap into public schools as being on-par with well-established scientific theories. If you want to question evolution then do so, but don't be surprised if we get irritated when you bring up the same debunked claim that we've heard twenty times before.

[Virginia-American]

A true scientist welcomes challenges to their pet theories--indeed, they should be challenging those theories themselves, rather than attacking those who do. That's how scientific knowledge moves forward.

Indeed. But is a high school class the place for these challenges?

If, (a really big if), ID finds a place in biology someday, then it belongs in a science class. But not before.

It is fundamentally dishonest claim that ID is somehow cutting-edge science when, eg, Dembski has never submitted a paper on his "law of conservation of information" to any math or statistics journal, or even gotten his university to publish a monograph on it.

Or Behe calling ten-minute phone calls, without a manuscript present, better than standard peer review. It could have saved him a lot of grief if he had been aware ot the fact that the evolution of blood clotting had been researched years before he published his (nontechnical) book.

And don't claim that the establishment's censorship is the culprit here. That's why academic tenure is valuable. Aren't there any retired professors who could carry the ID torch with no fear of reprisal at all?