I have no problem with addressing ID in a history of science class, but since it has contributed no new ideas in 200 years, it is not exactly cutting edge.
There are areas of research that ID advocates cite as promising for their beliefs, but these areas are being explored quite adequately by mainstream science.
ID is basically the assertion that not everything can be explained. In the meantime, work goes on and explanations keep coming.
> if you claim there is no science behind ID, then you have nothing to worry about and the class will be abject failure.
Do you say the same regarding, say, the new law being passed about in California to mandate the teaching of the wonders of homosexuals?