Comment Re:This is good! (Score 1) 528
the problem with "Intelligent Design" is not that whether it's "true" or not, but rather that it's not science because it ignores the Scientific Method
I disagree. ID is a valid theory, in terms of a possible explanation. After all, Monsanto is doing ID (and some DD - Dumbass Design), so we know it can happen to some degree. Old-fashioned breeding is also ID.
But, the evidence for it is very week in the big-picture sense. We normally don't discuss very week theories in science class. I don't mind if a state textbook puts in a blurb about it, but the "Evidence" section would be blank.
An interesting side discussion for students is if complexity alone is evidence for ID. In other words, if a natural explanation is not currently known, is that strong evidence for a creator, or merely evidence of humanity's knowledge gaps?
Asking those kinds of questions is a great way to learn such that I am all for bringing up ID in a science class, if done well. I really hate to say it, but I agree with Bush in terms of bringing it up. (I have to shower after that admission.)