The arguments for teaching intelligent design as science are specious, based on misleading arguments and an altered definition of science.
Science deals only with phenomena that can be observed or detected by our senses and measured. A given procedure, the scientific method, is used to generate scientific knowledge. A hypothesis is proposed, its limits are defined and it is tested; then it is published, retested, reviewed and evaluated by outside scientific peers. The validation process is repeated many times, sometimes over centuries. If it is consistently upheld, the hypothesis may be elevated to a status of theorem, theory or law; but even at those illustrious stages, it is never put forth as irrefutable truth and will be discarded or modified if even one discrepancy is verified.
On the other hand, intelligent design cannot be observed or measured. Its untested knowledge is based on the interpretations or speculations of one religious movement.
It is not science at all, nor is it an alternative to scientific knowledge.
That is why almost all scientists reject it. If its backers want it treated as science, let them subject it to the scientific method. Their challenges of the theory of evolution are misleading (dishonest?). They overlook the evidence which is around us every day and try to redefine science or what the theory says.
I don’t want my tax dollars spent teaching any religious doctrine, let alone calling it science.
