I think ID leaves room for one to say “at the root, somewhere, is an intelligent creator,” as those holes continue to appear, and you delve into them looking for more and more information.

Just because you think God did it doesn’t mean you stop trying to figure out HOW He did it. You’ll never get there, but you’ll get closer and closer for all eternity.

In other words, the whole argument boils down to simple belief.

“I believe in God and creationism” versus “I believe in the objectivity of science”.

What should we do if, after looking at everything, consensus does emerge that some sort of intervention would be required to explain life? Would we stop scientific inquiry into those areas? I don’t think so, I think that if the majority of scientists were to decide that (and they haven’t but many theories have been unpopular) I think that scienctific exploration into how such intervention happened would increase.

It certainly wouldn’t be scientific to deny evidence just because the answer the evidence gave would make further investigation very hard.

The point of this post though, was that a student who had a good grounding in ID would also, of necessity, have a good grounding in evolution. The most you could say against teaching ID then would be that it is a waste of time. Perhaps it is.

We teach a lot though that can be considered a waste of time. Some think anti-drug education is a waste of time. Others think that there is no reason to read Shakespear.

I am pretty content to let democratic majorities in a community decide what is, and what isn’t a waste of time for their kids to learn.

You can’t do experiments to determine the nature of this supposed designer or how he/she/it operates. You can’t refine or falsify aspects of the theory. All you can do is accept it.

How did the human eye gain its complex structure? Intelligent design. How did bacteria develop spinning flagella? Intelligent design. How did cellular structures came into being? Intelligent Design.

Evolutionary biologists can’t fully answer these questions in step-by-step detail, but at least they acknowledge that they are questions. ID proponents see them as answers.

It’s for this reason that ID doesn’t belong in science classes, even if it were true. The phenomenon it describes is simply not capable of being analyzed or explored by scientific methods.

If some people prefer to believe that an intelligent designer is at work behind the scenes, that’s their right. But there is nothing scientific about such a belief.