[ QUOTE ]
Creationism in the guise of Intelligent design, can be as testable as you want it to be. The problem is, that any falsifiable hypothesis you create, is soon falsified.
[ QUOTE ]
My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature.
For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid.
Also, humans will not have muscles attached to the coccyx that, in other primates, are used to flex the tail but (since the human tail bones are all fused together) would be non-functional in humans. That would be stupid as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Link
[/ QUOTE ]
I like your examples, but I'm not sure why you linked that blog entry, which was from a (debatable) legal perspective that ignored the scientific issues.
If some version of Intelligent Design is discovered which is backed by evidence and appears to have even 1/100 of the predictive power of the standard theory of evolution, then it might be appropriate to study it in a science classroom, regardless of the motives of the people who brought it up. However, so far, ID has no scientific merit, and has no more place in a science classroom than the idea that the sun shines because I'm happy.