As a Catholic, my personal belief is that God is behind the origin of all life on eartth.
>> This is, in effect, intelligent design, otherwise known as theistic evolution, that I understand your church to accept. <<
The church accepts theist evolution, it doesn't have an official position on it. While theistic evolution is the same thing on paper as intelligent design, the difference is intelligent design presents itself as a scientific theory. My belief that God is the origin of life is not based on scientific studies. It's my own personal spiritual belief. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a PERSONAL view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.
>> So, I don’t see the logic behind the resistance, from a religious standpoint. I also don’t see the logic behind precluding any recognition, of the possiblity that an outside intelligence played a role in establishing life on Earth, from a scientific point of view. <<
There is no known method on earth to test this hypothesis. It's simply a spiritual belief. As I noted, I have no problem bringing up "intelligent design" in a philosophy class. I object to it being taught in a science class because it's not science, just I would object to calculus being used to try and explain good vs. evil. Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the facts of evolution and the scientific theory of its mechanisms. This is essentially the same biological curriculum taught in public schools.
>> Ruling out plausible theories, as to the origin of life on Earth, strikes me as not scientific, and indicates a bias borne of a priori assumptions. <<
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis that can't be tested. If were to teach every possible explanation for the origin of the universe in a science class, we'd take months going over hundreds of scenarios of how the universe started and how life began. We don't, we go with the most likely version supported with the most amount of scientific evidence. The current science lesson doesn't supposed the involvement of a creator, not does it rule out the possibility. It is silent on the matter.
In practice that is NOT what's happening in schools. It is NOT remaining silent on the issue of a creator.
You're missing the whole point anyway. The objection isn't to evolution being taught at all. It's to evolution being taught exclusively through the misuse of litigation and the force of big government.
All the arguments about *well, lets just teach science* and *teach about creation in philosophy class* are just a smoke screen. That is NEVER going to happen and the one time it was tried in CA, everyone had a meltdown anyway. And show me a public school that has a philosophy class to begin with.
Offering to creationists an option that doesn't exist in the hopes that they are gullible enough to be happy with it is underhanded.
People want creation and ID to be taught in schools alongside evolution. Poll after poll demonstrates that. Control of the schools belongs in the hands of the local school board. If they decide to teach both, parents who don't want their children to hear about creation can sign an opt out form for their child to miss that class, instead of engaging the ACLU and suing the school into compliance with THEIR wishes.
Or they have the option that is always thrown up in the face of Christians who object to decisions the public schools make. Send their kids to their own God free and creation free private school at their own expense, or homeschool them.
Since when did opting out their child from a class become a non-option anyway? Why sue into compliance?