How? What evidence is there for ID? What does the theory of ID state? What does it predict? How do you test it? What would falsify it?
Can you answer any of these questions? If not, then what business does it have in science class?
Seriously, answer these questions. I have been asking them for quite some time, and all I get is insults in return.
I agree that evolution does not address anything other than what happens during the animation cycle of an organism. It does not address how that organism came to be animated. If Evolution is that limited then science is left with a gaping hole and maybe it should be addressed. If science can reproduce "creation" in the lab then ID or Creationism is forever discredited.
The evidence for ID is all around you and science itself depends on and uses it; it's the order and complexity of the universe.
There are plenty of cases in the world around us where order and complexity are known to be the direct result of intelligence; but nowhere can it be shown that order and complextiy can arise with out an intelligent source, or to put it another way, where the source is known and shown to be non-intelligent. The best science can do is state that they can't tell if there was intelligence or design behind the order and complexity.
To use nature itself, like snowflake or crystal formation, as evidence that order and complexity can arise from natural or non-intelligent sources, presupposes that there was no ID behind the universe to begin with and that's what you're trying to establish. You can't assume the conclusion to prove it.
If order and complexity are not evidence for intelligence or design, then science has nothing on which it can be based and there's no reson for anyone to consider that what goes on in science labe is either intelligent or designed, either.