Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Ok, so maybe i'm like the slow kid in the corner. I have trouble seeing how your question could be anything but rhetorical. But for a moment i'll assume its not and that...
This isn't a debate about what view is correct but simply a question as to why ID should be taught over other theories that have been fighting longer(i'm not familar with what that could be). I would say that the main reason is that ID was originally taught and only replaced by evolution through false evidence in a court case. And by this i'm referring to the "Nebraska Man".

CaveDiver I must apologize for my narrow view. I automatically assumed you were talking about the us. But yes I was refering to the 1925 scopes trial. What was its affect?
the only court case of which I am aware is the Scopes Trial, under which Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution. Was Nebraska Man ever mentioned? And what effect did it have? Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only Arkansas and Mississippi followed through with laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory. While I personally believe that evolution should be taught in schools (along with ID) I don't believe in any theory I have seen on macro evolution. The scopes trial had a rather large effect on the school system here in the US. And it was based largely on a pig tooth that was thought to be the missing link. The discovery institute? I'm sorry but I am not familiar with them so I would have trouble making an argument for something they have said (man, its hard enough to defend the things I say )

evolution at the species level or above evolution belowe the species level At first I thought of listing all the facts (from my knowledge and veiws at least) one by one. But this would do nothing but duplicate the point for the entire forum. And more importantly it really doesn't answer the question. I'm really not sure what the core of ID curriculem should be. A very good question. It might make for an interesting debate between the people that think ID should be taught at all. I would have sworn that I read that the "Nebraska Man"(to give it its proper name, Peccary) was used in the trial. But you are right I was greatly mistaken. LOL Thanks for the correction. Well because it is the correct theory of course... WAIT DON'T SHOOT! I'm just kidding. Well at least kind of kidding. With out getting into a debate about the specific facts that is really the argument for either side to be taught. They both argue that they are right. Both sides come to different conclusions over the same facts. And some people from both sides try to ignore some facts and throw other ones in (Nebraska man used in the scopes trial as an example). But what I would think to be a good reason from the evolutionist's view point is
1)The large number of the population that is Christian... And largly unable to give a reason for there belifes.
2}Because of this (and assuming you are correct) it would give evolution a much better chance of being accepted by the general population.
What part of the population believes ID over evolution or visa versa depends on what part of the world you are in. But I think that people of science often forget about the average person. Which is really what public education is aimed at. Simply teaching evolution won't change what a person's home or cultural teachings have brought them to believe. To do this you have to address the specific facts that they base there belifes on. While I did base the begining of my argument(ok fine, the whole argument) on an ignorant statement, i'm not quite ignorant enough to think that peccary plays a role in the "evidence" for or against evolution. While I was wrong in stating that it was used in the trial it is a huge assumption and leap to read beyond that. But yeah lol I do have some reading to do. And I suspect I always will. I already addressed this above. But I might as well indulge you.... Your absolutely right. I was sadly mistaken and even worse wrong! I didn't mean to present it as such. But rather as part of the (US)legal history. But I think that fell apart since peccary wasn't used in the trial anyway. I haven't had time to look at this yet. But I definately will. Thanks for the link!!I hope that I have done this in the correct format. I did a general reply since I was responding to more than one post. But if I need to do individual replies just let me know. Also thanks for the tip about quote boxes. We will see if I did it right.

While I understand that you can't ever assume that all Christians agree on any subject. I think that to a high degree Christianity does equel believing in ID. When you say "God" are you referring to the God of the bible? If so I would think that you have the hardest task of any view point. Because at least from my view point the two are completely uncompatable. If I come to believe in evolution I will no longer believe in God.