...since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science.
I suppose you wouldn't want to admit to overstating your case just a little, would you? Really, 'every scientist in the life sciences', 'support it 100%', 'unanimously agree'? Dig deeper on that one my friend and you will find lots of scientists support ID - even though the evolutionists have had a strangle hold on the universities for so long that it has been virtually impossible for anyone with a contrary view to advance. But understand that there are lots of scientists that believe in ID. Every hear of Dr Gary Parker? Ever read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson?
Understand too that what has raised the heckles and upped the ante has been the tendency of the evolutionists to refer to their teaching as 'the fact of evolution', not 'the theory of evolution'. However, be that as it may, both evolution and intelligent design have to be accepted on faith as no one can go back thousands, millions or billions of years to see what went on way back then. Here's what I would like - I want to hear the case for why it is necessary to teach either in the schools. Can't science be taught without ever needing to address the issue of 'origins' at least for public and high schools? What really has it got to do with the understanding of the object of the scientific study? Do you think an optometrist is a better or worse optometrist if he/she is trained in and believes in evolution or ID - or doesn't give a gnat's whisker for either? Here's how it works, here's how it relates to the rest of the body, the biology of it, diseases, differences from one eye to the next etc etc - where did it come from? Oh, that's a mystery and we don't need to go there to understand the eye. To follow this example through farther, can you name one solitary benefit that the teaching of evolution brings to the table as far as the advancement of eye care for the general public?
Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom. As a matter of fact, ban public education.
You need to learn more about what real science means.
What you do not understand is that, by virtue of adhering to ID theories an individual excludes himself from the world of science, divests himself of the high priesthood of scientists, and places himself into the dark world of superstition. Science and religion are as far apart as, well, east from west. One simply cannot allow the intermingling of tangible, provable, hard facts with unseen and uncertified hunches. No hunches allowed, nosirree.
And while the world may appear to be full of information for you and all humans to observe and test, don't believe for one second that any intelligence is behind that information. That would be as irrational as the most insane of fairy tales. IF you want to be a part of real science, that is. So, please remain in the world of superstition and hocus pocus, and don't even pretend to know the real facts about the world in which you live. Let the real scientists figure out what this world is all about. Okay?
Parker has his doctorate in education; Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. 'Nuff said!
Now you're talking! Education is violence. Public education is state sponsored violence. Abraham Lincoln was self-educated and I think he proved that a man can do great things without compulsory public education. Edison is another good example of someone who had little tainting from the school of conformity.