Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" Should Not be Implemented into Science Courses.

(1) "A controversy amongst the public? Yes. Amongst the scientific community? No." (a)Since, most people in the field of political science and economics, say anarchy is a bad form government should we strike it from our history books? (b)Your saying, we should let the few decide what everyone is taught. Even if it is against half of the populations beliefs? (c)Shouldn't the school systems teach fact as fact, not theory as fact? Evolution is a theory it has not been proven. Intelligent design is a theory it has not been proven either. In my opinion the schools should teach fact and present all theories, thereby eliminating the possibility for censorship, while at the same time encouraging academic exploration. (2) "When deciding what is to be taught in an science class, what is taught is what is agreed upon by the scientific community, not the public. They can exchange their views in other areas, but not have pseudo scientific ideas taught in classes as if it was a legitimate science." (A)See above (B)I fail to see, what is illegitimate about mentioning the possibility of some external, intelligent force being one of many explanations on how particles came into existence. What is so devastating? I fail to see the impact. (C)Also I believe it fit to point out that evolution discounts the possibility of an intelligent designer on belief it cannot be proven there isn't one and it cant be proven there is one. Those who take the intelligent design argument believe that there is, while those who take the evolutionist point of view believe there is not. In reality it is a matter of belief. (3) "Michael Behe presents his concepts such as irreducible complexity as if they were real detriments to evolution, as if they posed real problems. However, the scientific community has strongly contested against this. His examples of the eye and the bacterium flagella have been refuted. Ken Miller has refuted Michael Behe's analogy of the mousetrap. While removing one piece does not allow its function to be the same, it's function can change. It is the concept of exaption that Michael Behe has failed to incorporate." You are correct, however if you take evolution down to the base, I believe it shows that ID, at this point in time is a valid theory. We may not understand it yet, but the information we posses currently on the topic I believe points to the possibility of an intelligent designer. The topic I am talking about is energy. Energy cannot be created it can only be shifted from one form to another. This fact points to two possibilities. 1.There is something within energy that could have evolved 2.There was some form of intelligent force that initiated the process. Just to be clear I am not advocating the sole teaching of ID but I believe it is reasonable to present it as a possible alternative. (4) Note that I never contended that I.D. was breaking the separation of church and state, since I can conceive of I.D. proponents using the argument Behe did, and thus avoiding a false dilemma. I am targeting how it I.D. is unscientific, and thus should not be part of school science courses, something I.D. proponents cannot escape. (a) Well I'm glad we can agree that its not breaking the separation of church and state. However to say it is unscientific is an illogical leap.