I'm afraid I must resort to dazzling abstractions once again.
The science classroom by its very nature demonstrates the ongoing process of ID. Not only does ID bring about the capacity for science, but, on occasion it becomes the subject of science itself, which, I suppose, is what you are asking me to point out.
I am not comfortable with ID as a subject for the science classroom. For millennia ID has operated in the background, as the very object of human reason and senses. To turn the object into the subject is, well, not very productive. If we really have to belabor the point that the universe demonstrates intelligent design at almost every observable point I can only say we've made ourselves purposely ignorant of the obvious.
But what is a "science classroom?" Is it a place where we sit the children down and tell them all together what the real world is really like, and if they do not tow the line they fail? What arrogant constraints the Theory of Evolution has placed upon the classroom!
Bastards.
And the alternative is what? Good grades for effort? Self-esteem based education? Should we teach them that the flat earth theory is equally valid? Which of the following subjects do you have trouble with?
What do you think should be taught and why?