The proposition that 'design' can objectively be detected is mathematically implausible. The 'probability calculations' presented to discredit evolution are entirely and transparently specious. Moreover, according to the modern founders of the 'design' movement, ID is not as you say; ID is a pretext to get the Christian deity into academic discourse and into the classroom. Philip Johnson has explicitly said so.
Why would the alternative be more scientific than design?
The 'probability calculations' presented to discredit evolution are entirely and transparently specious.
In that case you can put ID in the class, state the reasons why the probability calculations are specious, the allow the proponents to counter and so on. The most reasonable view would win in open debate.
Moreover, according to the modern founders of the 'design' movement, ID is not as you say; ID is a pretext to get the Christian deity into academic discourse and into the classroom. Philip Johnson has explicitly said so.
No, it's been explicitly stated that it could apply to any designer. OTOH, science is a means of understanding reality. If God exists, shouldn't science reflect that?
Uh, how do you want to detect design if you don't even have a model of the designer?
We have a myriad examples of known design. If elements of nature resemble complex items of known design, why not assume design?