Originally posted by jccbin, in a long diatribe which never comes close to answering the original question about what there is to teach about ID:
First, a few notes on WHY Intelligent Design is proposed, according the scientists who have adopted it:
There is a fascist body of scientists whose whole lives have been built around Natural Selection (Darwin's theory of evolution).
Not liking a perceived attitude
among a group of scientists is a good reason for adopting a different theory?
Perhaps I should come up with my own subatomic particular theory because the current crop of subatomic physicists have absolutely no fashion sense!
This body is unwilling to consider viewpoints and hypotheses that threaten Natural Selection...
You say these people are "unwilling to consider" these viewpoints? Tell me, how do you know that scientists haven't considered these ideas, found them very lacking, and rejected them? You can't measure consideration in terms of acceptance
-- and I'll bet if you think for a moment and are honest with yourself, you'd realize you'd say these ideas were being considered
only if you saw them actually being accepted
This body is also extremely materialist in its views, meaning that any hypothesis that even implies something other than brute matter made the universe is heresy.
Do yourself a favor and look up the difference between methodological materialism
and philosophical materialism
[Skipping over a bunch of stuff that has been well addressed by others, and especially well laughed at by Hassan.]
When the ID scientists do debates with atheist scientists they never here attacks on the science, only on the implications of their hypothesis.
What convenient bubble have you been living inside? Saying that ID isn't good science and has no body of research, no program of research, no predictive value, that ID is nothing but poorly thought-out negative arguments against evolution combined with using a poorly defined "Designer" which has no particular identifiable or testable characteristics to explain whatever one thinks is too amazing to understand... all of that is much, much more than attacking any "implications" of ID.
As for ID not being Falsifiable, that is BS. Every part of the various proposals that support ID is testable. Back to our irrreducible complexity theory:
Take a bacterial flagellum away from its host bacteria and see if Natural Selection can create one from scratch.
I have a "theory" that there's an autographed copy of Alice in Wonderland
somewhere near the center of the Moon. As all can plainly see, my conjecture is indeed falsifiable. "All" someone has to do is dig up the Moon and sift through all of the debris -- careful not to destroy the fragile evidence of my correctness in the process -- and if no such book is found, I shall be proven wrong.
But until such time as those lazy, smug bastards who oppose my brilliance bother to do the work to disprove me, I can stand proudly by the excellence of my "theory", no?
Good new science is not only falsifiable in a theoretical sense, but, if it hopes to unseat well-established science that already stands behind a solid framework of evidence, the new science assumes the burden of proof, it does not foist impossible and/or million-year long burdens of proof upon others.
That's a bit overrated.
Oh, and by the way, what does all this mean one would TEACH in a classroom about ID?