[ThinkPlease]

ID folks advance hypothesees that point to flaws in Darwin's theories...recall again that all that is required to disprove a theory is contradicting evidence, which exists in abundance for evolution.

The only thing ID has ever hypothesized is that there might be a designer. Not yet has there been a falsifiable scientific theory presented, as far as I know little or no progress has been made toward one. Until then, ID is a gedanken experiment with no room in any high-school science classroom.

[=Intervention=]

I note that you take no issue with the flaws in Darwinism. The ID position (inasmuch that I can speak for them and as much as it is monolithic) is that there must be an alternate theory that does not have as many holes as evolution does. Behe, etc bring up the points of irreducable complexity and interdependence. The basic theory is that similarity in works suggests the imprint of a single author -- much like the characteristics of all of Shakespeare's works, or all of Monet's works readily show their similarities and their commonalities. But to demand that Only evolution be taught without also presenting its flaws or even ackowledging the existence of critics is to do schoolchildren a disservice. Yet that is exactly what you advocate, no? And that is the point where the state crosses the line from teaching into preaching. Advocation of that is being as dogmatistic as the church in Gallileo's time. Teach a theory without admitting contradicting evidence without ever stating that a theory itself never be proved (theories can only be disproved)...it is humorous.