"Intelligent design" is nothing more than a repackaging of creationism. Thinking that the Deity of Your Choice is involved in natural processes adds *nothing* to the scientific investigation of those processes.
"Science" is not a thing; it is a process by which we observe phenomena and form theories that best explain those phenomena. These theories -- these explanations -- also allow us to make predictions about what else we might expect to see. Observations must be verifiable and replicable by other scientists, and theories must be in a form that can be tested and modified as new data become available.
You are welcome to think that a God or Gods are involved in an observed phenomena, but when you use "God did it" to paper over gaps in current knowledge and to imply that something it too complex for us to *ever* understand, you are being unscientific. Indeed, you are being *anti-scientific.* And that is all so-called "intelligent design" does. It does not, therefore, belong in a science classroom -- except as an example of how not to do science.
A good scientist is not afraid to say that s/he does not know something. But s/he is optimistic, and burns with the desire to find out what we do not yet know, and is (ideally, but we are human...) not afraid to be proven wrong. To say "it is too complex: we will never understand" is unimaginably defeatist -- is actually tragic. To say "we will only ever know that God Did It" is to surrender, and slink back into the darkness we are just beginning to pull ourselves out of.
"Intelligent design" is nothing more than a repackaging of creationism. Thinking that the Deity of Your Choice is involved in natural processes adds *nothing* to the scientific investigation of those processes.
"Science" is not a thing; it is a process by which we observe phenomena and form theories that best explain those phenomena. These theories -- these explanations -- also allow us to make predictions about what else we might expect to see. Observations must be verifiable and replicable by other scientists, and theories must be in a form that can be tested and modified as new data become available.
You are welcome to think that a God or Gods are involved in an observed phenomena, but when you use "God did it" to paper over gaps in current knowledge and to imply that something it too complex for us to *ever* understand, you are being unscientific. Indeed, you are being *anti-scientific.* And that is all so-called "intelligent design" does. It does not, therefore, belong in a science classroom -- except as an example of how not to do science.
A good scientist is not afraid to say that s/he does not know something. But s/he is optimistic, and burns with the desire to find out what we do not yet know, and is (ideally, but we are human...) not afraid to be proven wrong. To say "it is too complex: we will never understand" is unimaginably defeatist -- is actually tragic. To say "we will only ever know that God Did It" is to surrender, and slink back into the darkness we are just beginning to pull ourselves out of.