[gondramB]

"That does not mean it was not intelligently designed"

no it doesn't. But to teach something in science class requires substantial positive evidence. If does not appear that God has left us such evidence or if He did it looks like we have not found it.

If you can get the education so that you can find and present such scientific evidence then people will listen to you.

But most ID proponents want the skip the hard part part of actually doing the discovery and supporting work and just force their faith into science by a vote.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You seem to use the word "evidence" as if evidence of intelligent design requires the designer to be present and directly testify at all times to his work. You require less evidence for the intelligent design of an automobile than for the design of objects that function specifically on a scale far more complicated than any human intelligence has been able to design or build.

Put another way, direct observation of an intelligent designer is necessary when it comes to biological phenomena, but is not needed where human artifacts are concerned. This is an arbitrary double standard for defining what causes matter to be organized and perform specific functions.

There is no harm for science to proceed under the assumption that God built and maintains the physical universe. It has done so for thousands of years. There certainly is no need to cry foul when this idea is set forth in qualified language. Unless, of course, one is a devotee of a particular philosophy of his own.