The teaching of Intelligent Design should be banned in all public schools.

I will be taking the position that Intelligent Design (ID) should not "be banned in all public schools. " It seems to me that my opponent's argument in round one would make a better outline than argument. He writes, "Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as Creationism but with a different name. " In what way are they "basically the same"? In content? In what they critique? In the motivations of those making the arguments? How are they the same? I imagine Zach means that they are the same in content. If that is the case, I'd like to see that argued, not just asserted. It is my contention that ID and creationism are different in content, Creationist arguments start with the belief in a specific deity and propose a narrative as the best model to explain our origins. On the other hand, ID arguments do not contain explicit theological content. Zach goes on to say that ID and Creationism "both mention how a creator made the universe and that everything is preplanned. " Really? Does ID necessarily entail a transcendent creator of the universe? William Dembski doesn't seem to think so:Indeed the whole point of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity and my own specified complexity is that these are empirical features of mundane objects that reliably signal intelligent causation. Whether these mundane objects trace their causal histories through mundane or transcendent designers is irrelevant. (1)Nor does he seem to support the idea that everything is preplanned:Many scientists worry that intelligent design attempts to usurp nature's autonomy. But that is not the case. Intelligent design is attempting to restore a proper balance between nature's autonomy and teleological guidance. Prior to the rise of modern science all the emphasis was on teleological guidance (typically in the form of divine design). Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and all the emphasis is on nature's autonomy (an absolute autonomy that excludes design). Where is the point of balance that properly respects both, and in which design becomes empirically evident? The search for that balance-point underlies all design-theoretic research. It's not all design or all nature but a synergy of the two. (2)Finally, Zach concludes that "Due to the separation of Church and State, Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools. " When, in the thesis of this debate, Zach says "all public schools", does he mean all public schools worldwide? If so, on what grounds should it be banned in public schools within countries that do not have separation of Church and State? But, I think there　are bigger issues than the scope of the world 'all'. How does Zach think Church and State should be seperated? How does he think it applies to ID being taught in public schools? By "separation of Church and State", is he giving an interpretation of the Establishment clause? If so, then this fails to argue that there is an ethical obligation to ban ID from public schools, but a legal obligation. In fact, it would mean that his argument amounts to saying that there is already an implied ban that is not being enforced or simply not explicit. I think there is much lacking in Zach's case. Sources:1. Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, p. 276.2. . http://www.designinference.com...