[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no scientific theory of ID, no peer-reviewed publication record, nor any university research being conducted. It's nothing more than a repackaging of creationism to attempt to make it more politically viable. In other words, it's a sham disguised as science.

Compare it to, for example, continental drift, which became part of the theory of plate tectonics. When continental drift was first proposed, it wasn't accepted by most geologists. Rather than lobby school boards and speak at churches, the proponents of continental drift published evidence. Eventually it was accepted by virtually all geologists, and is now taught at the high school level.

Why don't the proponents of ID proceed the same way?

[ QUOTE ]

Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what is a non sequitur? Nobody is denying a parents' right and responsibility to educate their children. Any parent is free, for example, to teach astrology to their kids as "science." (Or send them to a private school which does.) That doesn't imply it's appropriate to teach astrology in a public school science class, since astrology is not part of any accepted mainstream scientific theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Many scientists are divided on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. There is no scientific controversy at all regarding evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everything we are taught is always correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every scientific theory is continually being revised and considered potentially falsifiable according to any new evidence. So what? That doesn't mean schools should cast universal doubt over all of science, or start teaching pseudo-scientific nonsense as an "alternative."

[remainder of your rant snipped.]