It has had a hearing, and has been found lacking so far.
The fact that organized matter performing specific functions can be found on a nearly ubiquitous scale only makes the theory of intelligent design that much stronger.
But you have no evidence that ID is the answer, any more than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism does.
Your example from FSM is inadequate since the FSM was created by imagination, while intelligent design and its results exist in the objective world.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is the exact same thing as ID, with the exact same arguments. It merely gives an alternate identity to the designer. You cannot logically claim that FSM is inadequate while promoting ID.
No. They would like to see an equal application of the standards evolutionists enjoy for themselves.
You feel so persecuted. As I said before, ID is not special, science attacks new ideas (even ideas they want to hear), and we see which ones survive. Einstein had a famous debate with Neils Bohr over Quantum theory -- Einstein didn't think it worked.
You want the same rules? Okay, first you need to forget about using the schools as an end-run around science, quit trying to win based on indoctrination rather than merit. Keep fighting a scientific battle in the scientific community, and if ID ever comes to be an accepted alternative or augmentation to ToE, then it will by default get into the schools.
I was discussing science texts with my 80+ year-old grandmother, and it was amazing what her texts didn't have in them that we take for granted today (such as relativity, sub-atomic particles and DNA). Science always changes, and all sacred cows will be slaughtered if they don't withstand scrutiny. ToE is no exception.
But the ToE has withstood scrutiny for over a century, so you have lot to overcome. If you want ID in the science class, you have to play by the rules of science. For that reason, and for the fact that ID is by admission of its founders religion and not science, I don't give you much of a chance.
No it is not. Intelligent design as we know it takes place through human endeavor and not an FSM. Therefore intelligent design has scientifically viable agents. It also has scientifically accessible results. That already places it on a more certain footing than not only some FSM notion spun out of the imagination, but also a philosophy of history concocted from circumstantial evidence.
Actually its ability to withstand scrutiny is waning, and 150 years doesn't mean diddly in comparison to the millennia across which science has operated under both the assumption of, and by means of, intelligent design. But it's certainly our privilege under the Constitution to grant a say to cheerleaders on a sinking ship. In short, evolutionism is but an aberration in the general practice of pure science, easily overcome by common sense. Why it usurps the name "science" for itself is something of a mystery. Maybe ego has something to do with it.