'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?

That's not really intelligent design. That's theism and evolution, which are seperate positions that don't contradict each other.

Sure. The first part is theism; the second is evolution.It's not intelligent design, which is the specific conjecture that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are insufficient to explain the diversity and function of life on Earth. I'm not a proponent of ID myself, but I believe that proponents of the intelligent design movement would tell you that's an incorrent formulation of the position. Intelligent design isn't a movement in cosmology; its a movement that makes assertions about biological systems. I can only speak for what ID proponents have argued to me, of course.But I think it's a mistake to conflate the seperate, compatible positions of theism and evolution into something called "intelligent design", because it puts a harmless face on what is a very dangerous and troubling educational movement. The philosophy you promote is entirely consistent with science and with the aims of a high school science classroom. True "intelligent design" subverts science to ideology, and I think you do yourself, your views, and the goals of science defenders a disservice by referring to your views as "intelligent design."It's your choice, of course. But why you would want to associate your entirely reasonable position with the charlatans of the ID movement is beyond me, I must admit. It's better to say that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are held by evolutionists (such as myself) to be sufficient to explain the diversity and history of life of Earth, without the need of intervention by God or anything else. Apparently evolution foes believe that the postulate that God was not necessary is the same as saying God was not present.