Good question, actually, since it appears it is not a law at all.. after all, the accelerating expansion of the universe violates it.
I must say, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas, some of which are purely speculative. I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it, so I do not know why I expected any greater enlightenment in thought now.
I must say, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas, Indeed:
some of which are purely speculative.
I have nothing at all against children being exposed to various "speculative" ideas, as long as they are presented *as* speculative ideas. The problem with "ID", however, is that it's a speculative idea that dishonestly wants to be taught as if it were an established field of science, which it most certainly is not. They want ID to disingenously be presented in a way that accords it the respect which established science has, without actually having done anything to *earn* that respect.
Worse, much of what has been suggested as an "ID curriculum" is actually just science-bashing propaganda, comprised of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and "spin".
This goes far beyond just exposing kids to "speculative ideas", it's an outright propaganda campaign, it's a Big Lie.
I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it, so I do not know why I expected any greater enlightenment in thought now.
Yes, the anti-evolutionists don't seem very confident of their beliefs at all, that's why I keep seeing so many posts about them wanting to yank their kids (and everyone else's kids) out of public schools so that they'll no longer be exposed to evolutionary biology and other fields of science which scare them.
...I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas... There's nothing wrong with teaching ID. The problem is pretending it's science, and pretending that there is substantial scientific doubt about evolution.
For example, it's an interesting case study when studying the history or philosophy of science.
I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it...
A relevant example here is Lysenko having Vavilov sent to the Gulag and then executed. Vavilov's crime was being a geneticist and Darwinist. He had the courage to say that real science showed that Lysenko was full of it.
...confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged...
You seem to be confusing "belief" and "knowledge".
As I see it, the main belief on the evolution side is the belief that the scientific method of observation, measurement, theory testing, etc, leads to reliable knowledge.
Creationists challenge this, by postulating that the Bible, Koran, or whatever scripture or revelation they believe in has some sort of veto.
It is known (beyond a reasonable doubt) that at least some creationist claims (like the 6000-year-old Earth, or the story of Xenu and the Thetans) are false, so their method of arriving at knowledge is not reliable.
ID-ists, on the other hand, pretend to honor the scientific method, but they make claims without backing them up with observations. For example, the claim of "no transitional fossils". Again it is known (beyond a reasonable doubt) that there is a steady progression of fossil forms going from Hyracotherium (aka Eohippus) to modern horses, asses, zebras, etc. IF you're going to challenge this, you need some contrary evidence, not just an empty claim that "you weren't there" or "we can't be 100% sure", or whatever.
There is no coherent theory of ID; who did what, to what, when, how, none of these are specified. There is no observation that could test such a vacuous hypothesis.