It’s not possible to be intellectually honest and teach ID as science.
Every piece of evidence put forth by the ID movement people has been debunked. [/quote]
Am I correct in assuming that you are not a scientist? First, I will start by saying that just because something is “debunked” does not mean it is not useful and should not be taught. For example, I can “debunk” a lot of what Newton and his contemporaries came up with in regards to mechanics. Does that mean we no longer teach classical mechanics? No, because classical mechanics is still useful to engineers and as a starting point for physics students to begin studying more complex topics like quantum mechanics. Yes, ID is not a true scientific discipline and most (not all) of ID is not based on science, but some (not much) of it is and deserves to be taught in courses that that information is relevant to. It does not, however, deserve the same time and attention that theories with the kind of evidence that evolution has does. Even that notwithstanding, much of the reason evolution has so much evidence to support it is due to the criticism of the religious conservatives, including creationism and ID. For instance, when the idea of irreducible complexity was first introduced by ID proponents, several problems were pointed out with the evolutionary process that had no real answers. What happened? Biologists worked feverishly to find actual answers to these problems using real scientific methods. Thanks in part to ID proponents, we now have a better understanding of the chemical processes involved in blood clotting, as well as an “evolutionary map” that can be used to help trace the evolution of blood clotting mechanisms. ID is not science for the most part, I agree with that, but I do teach it to my students to illustrate some major points that are good for all scientists to know. The first is that we should always be questioning and reevaluating even the most established scientific knowledge in order to try to improve on our knowledge. The second is how not to present data and ideas. Many, not all, proponents of ID are intellectually dishonest and falsify data in order to further their cause and it has ruined the credibility of anyone who subscribes to ID, even those who have never compromised their scientific integrity. It is a good example to my students of how not to pretend to be an expert in a field you are not. We scientists do not take kindly to that, and those who do tend to not last long in the scientific community. There are two reasons right there where ID has a place being taught in a science class.
From what you wrote above I do not think you understand my post.
I am saying teaching ID as science is dishonest. As in a valid scientific theory.
From you’ve written, you are not teaching ID per se, rather the importance of open scientific inquiry and how to properly present data. That’s not what I’m talking about at all.
Secondly, have you looked into what these creation “science” institutes are doing? For one they are linking all bad things in the world to evolution, that’s right demonizing it. Look at the image, I have attached. It’s on this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/lie/evils-of-evolution.