ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution in our schools.
The solution ultimately is for parents to homeschool or send their kids to conservative private schools. The leftist element that controls the public schools (ACLU, teachers' unions, federal & state bureaucracies, feminist-gay-secularist activists, etc.) will never allow evolution to be disestablished as the only theory allowed to be considered. They'll never let it be put to the competitive test in the marketplace of ideas. I gave up on the "publik skools" a long time ago and encourage any conservative to do the same.
Oh, they'll keep trying. Fundamentalist Christians (who, it seems, are the ONLY religious sect pushing such things) will use any means possible to get their religion taught in schools, paid for by the government.
I believe they think it gives more "oomph" if they are so "blessed".
I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory. Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."
It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process. But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.
The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."
Evolution is only a theory as well. It shouldn't be taught as fact either.
Oh, I don't know about that.
If physicists can promulgate "String Theory" (without even a lick of physical proof), why can't Intelligent Design--for which there is ample circumstantial proof, be taught?
Biology, physics, and chemistry are all pointing to an orderly, designed universe, which is, or should be, at the foremost of intellectual chatter of this era.
That such a mountain of evidence is ignored is telling of the bias (and fear) in some. Perhaps they feel it would dry up funding? It shouldn't--I'd DOUBLE funding, because we'd be getting closer to an understanding.
If OJ Simpson could be convicted on circumstantial evidence (civil trial), and criminals are convicted daily based on circumstantial evidence, shouldn't that same standard apply elsewhere?
Many scientists are deists. Some, theists. IMHO, the weight of coincidences has now piled up to where an honest scientist ought to, at least, concede the probability that this is a designed universe, not a "Cinderella" one that "just happened" to be favorable for our existence.
The Anthropic argument can work both ways. It doesn't necessarily rule anything out either way.
I urge you to read the book "Not by Chance!" by Lee Spetner, prof. emeritus of information theory at MIT. You will be very surprised.
The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is based on probabilities, but the proponents of the theory forgot one thing. They forgot to do even a first-order probabilistic calculation to test the mathematical plausibility of their theory. I defy you to show me a single source that does so. Dawkins has no clue on that matter. He doesn't even understand the problem. Spetner and others have done the calculations, and have essentially proven that the theory doesn't work -- not even close.
"ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution in our schools."
Sounds like a dogmatic, rigidly religious BELIEF, to me.