kuresu writes:
We teach plenty of false theories in biology, geology, and astronomy. Like what the geocentric universe was and why its wrong, like what spontaneous generation is and why it is wrong (note, not abiogenesis), like what spontaneous combustion is and why it's wrong.
ID will be included to show why it's wrong as compared to evolution.
Hmmm. I suppose there could be a place for ID in science classrooms when approached from the perspective of history, but even when taking this approach it would be of a different nature than the history of sciences like biology, geology and astronomy. When, for example, we study the history of astronomy, we're studying the history of scientific efforts to understand our planet's place in the universe. A study of the history of ID would, for the most part, be one of religious, not scientific, efforts.
There has been scientific work done on ID, but it mostly isn't anything IDists would recognize or accept. For example, cosmologists have noted the apparent fine tuning of cosmological constants for making life possible, and IDists have incorporated this into their arguments, but the conclusions of the scientists involved in such work don't tend toward the theological or anything IDists would find acceptable. In other words, agreeing to teach something like the fine tuning of cosmological constants in science class by outlining the work of actual scientists is unlikely to satisfy IDists. Despite protests to the contrary, they want something that comes much closer to indicating the Christian God of the Bible.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2