For all of the work people like these have put into intelligent design, you want to totally exclude it from the curriculum.
As soon as they actually have a theory, I'm sure there'd be much interest in discussing it in science classrooms. But as it stands, the discussion is more like this:
1) Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed empirical research and development on evolutionary models and findings, constituting a body of data 200 years old and contributed to by tens of thousands of researchers at every level of the biological sciences;
vs.
2) A couple of books that some guys wrote.
My wife is hard at work this week employing the theory of evolution to develop a phylogeny, through genetics, of a cryptically morphological family of common agricultural pests. If you or Behe or whoever could explain to her how ID could make a more accurate model or suggest a line of inquiry that could circumvent the laborious process of comparing inhereted homologous errors, I'm sure she'd be glad to hear it.
But maybe until ID constitutes a little more than some misleading statistics and a few self-published books, it doesn't quite merit inclusion in science instruction, where we teach that which represents the mainstream and not the fringe?
™ Version 4.2
