Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class!

I don't think they have that much time. It's as much a waste of time to teach ID, even as a negative example, as it would be to examine Holocaust denial or flat-Earthism.American students are leaving high school not even knowing how to do a Purnett Square. Let's get the fundamentals of biology across, because that's all we have time for. We can waste time on the frivoloty of tearing down ID, which is not all that hard, in college.

Holocaust denial was pretty big in its day. I don't think they ever made it to the Supreme Court, but I suppose they could be next if ID makes it in. Well, keeping in mind that by "one day" you really mean "one period of about 40 minutes", which is how much time they spend in bio class in one day. I don't think that's enough time to both get at the crux of ID and show its shortcomings and deal with students who think you're leveling a scientific case for atheism. In a day and age where genetics inflects almost every aspect of our daily lives? I think the importance of a good grounding in biology is increasing exponentially. If the last epoch was about computers and information tech, the next one is going to be about genetics and biotech.I just don't see that we have the time to waste.

Which is the one thing that is impossible to teach in a teacher/classroom environment.How are you going to teach critical thinking in a paradigm of "I'm the teacher, I have the facts, take notes while I tell them to you?" The purpose of education is the dissemination of fact and training in techniques of math, art, and scholarship. Critical thinking? I don't see how it can be taught, it's self-defeating. If you teach somebody that critical thinking means not taking someone's word for something, and then you proceed to expect your students to take your word on the fact that ID is wrong, what do you expect that you're going to get?And how on Earth do you expect a high school student to draw the distinction between refuting ID and refuting God? After all, if you refute the position that organisms were designed, then the only conclusion is that they were not designed. And if they weren't designed, there's no need for a designer. And isn't that way too close to a "scientific" argument for atheism for every single student to be able to tell the difference?

Nominally. The real purpose of assignments, homework, presentations, etc. is for teachers to put on the apperance of adopting "new" techniques in the classroom, and to assign homework so complicated that parental assistance is a must as a diagnostic to see which child's parents aren't involved in their schooling.Critical thinking is a skill you have to develop on your own. It's fundamentally incompatible with the teacher/classroom paradigm. The authority cannot instruct you to disregard authority and think for yourself; it's something you learn only when you're betrayed by your authorities. And too large for a high school science classroom. As we see here on the board every day, it takes a sophisticated understanding of evolution and molecular biology to even understand the arguments of ID, much less refute them.For instance, a fact we regularly toss around here is that ID proponents conflate semantic meaning with Shannon information and try to apply the rules of one to conclusions about the other.What the hell is that going to mean to a high school student? Claude Shannon wasn't exactly on the curriculum when I was 16. I was a pretty bright kid but I wasn't that bright. My best friend was a math genius, he's gone on to Ph.D's in math and physics, but even he wasn't talking about Shannon at age 16.Adults barely have a handle on ID, including most of its lay proponents. It's not only outside the scope and purpose of a high school education, it's beyond the ability of the students.

You might have been taught techniques of empiricism, but did you really not know how to approach information or instruction critically before you took a class on it?

Your experience may sort of prove my point; or it's possible that I'm making a point that isn't provable.In my experience, there are people who do not think critically. They will accept the conclusions of anyone they choose to deem an authority; and they usually anoint their authorities based on the opinions of other authorities.You could sit such a person down in a classroom, and instruct them not to accept uncritically the statements of authorities, and they would accept that statement uncritically; then they would leave the classroom and accept uncritically the statements of authority.It's the "I'm an individualist, just like everybody else" problem. It's why people on the left and right parrot the so-called "talking points", and then accuse the other side of parroting talking points.