The summary of your post is that there can be "alternate theories." Certainly. But ID is not a "theory" by any definition (except for "theory"="guess").
By definition, ID cannot explain the MECHANICS of evolution. Therefore it cannot be a theory. It is a belief.
Teaching ID in science class is the same as teaching catholicism in math class. It is trying to teach "back door" religion where it does not belong. If you teach ID, you have to teach every other Creation myth. And which of those myths is appropriate in a science class?
This is not about "alternate theories" or "open debate." This is about teaching a specific religous belief in publci scohools.
There is no "alternate theories" to TToE. The only people that have so-called alternatives don't understand it.
What you mean is that ID cannot explain the mechanics of *biology*, not 'evolution'.
But evolution doesn't explain the MECHANICS of biology either. It merely accepts them as they are, therefore it cannot be a theory. It is a belief.
You know, I'm really not wicked into these kinds of threads.
Anyhow, Your phrase there conveniently omits the possibility that evolution is an erroneous assumption. It is self referential to your view. You know the view that a lot of people do not accept as reliable, or valid, or true? That one.
If you read Ann's book you'll recognize the line about "assume a can opener."
Darwinism or evolution is not an established fact. How can it be? All of the evidence is not in yet, and of course it likely never can be.
In order to hold darwinism you have to not consider certain observable facts. Or do I mean unobservable facts? Say the finches at Galapagos, where are all of the new ones that Darwin never saw? It has only been since 1835 or something.
Darwinists indeed use pretty consistent methods of identification. Good grief, I hated Bergey for all of that nomenclature stuff, and observations concerning cell walls, motility, sporing, and all the rest.
Still, there really is not much new out there. We are simply observing the old, and some very old organisms at that. Why won't those spores simply die?
Darwinism also requires something that is not quite unlike ID. Darwinism requires the suspension of disbelief in the very principles from which it gets authority. Rejection of Authority.
Ain't that a fundamental principal of the scientific method?
Maybe the new Theory should be called Observationism!
Just because you can see a lot more things don't make it a scientific law. Thank God for VanLeeenhook and pioneers like Pasteur and John Snow and many others.
Indeed darwinists stand on the shoulders of giants, but the Theory is still just an unprovable premise.
But, like a lot of the loonie lefties on their crazy causes, their first thing is to 'go tell it to a judge."
I think that is wrong.