Replies

"Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

…

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition [of science]. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. "

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/10/19/behe-astrology-and-id-are-both-science/

{Me: I believe in ID}

Me: Its beings used as a ruse to force science to stop using the scientific method in teaching
Good things can be used for bad purposes.

grjr21: What ?

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

ID is about stopping that quest to resolve contradictions and explain things that don't seem to make sense and generally searching until we fins an answer within the laws of the universe - or using the experience to expand our understanding of those laws.

Science class, should teach science, whatever the science of the day is. Other things, based in faith rather the scientific process can be taught elsewhere.