Regarding the scope of science, we could say the conclusions of scientific thinking are necessarily limited even while it is deemed sufficiently expansive to accomodate all sorts of fields. This suggests two kinds of scope: (a) a sufficiently large scope of objects that merit legitimate scientific analysis; (b) the sufficiently large scope of information discovered about those objects.
Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge). I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.
Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge).
First, the scope of the field is not limited by the curriculum guidelines for elementary and secondary schools.
Second, the scope of science changes as discoveries are made.
I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.
I'm in favor of a historical presentation at, maybe a high school level. Currently, as you move up toward graduate education, the curriculum changes to only a historical and contextual presentation of experiments and thought processes. This, by the way, has nothing to do with ID.