Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[antagon]

if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so. any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study. it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.

Exactly. I mean, what's the multiple choice question on that one?

Which of the following is the best reaction you should have for the way the world works?
A. It sucks. Maybe there was a designer.
B. It's amazing! The designer is awesome!
C. It just is, without bearing on how I should feel about it
D. The bible is wrong
E. The world allows for much grandeur right down to the smallest molecules.

I know what you're thinking: oh crap, I've narrowed it down to two......

Seriously, what kind of learning is a student supposed to get out of such a thing? This is not science.

one of my students will come away with the idea that if they wanted to get an A, they would have to go with C, exclusively, as far as how they present a conclusion. i'd inform my kiddies that persuasion in science is in the evidence and would expose them to theses and journal contributions with earthshaking implications, but which delivered evidence supporting conclusions with the necessary sterility to make them shine on their own.

teaching the matter, there is plenty of room to embrace and encourage secular awe and enthusiasm over the way the world works. if i was teaching at a religious school, i could imagine that awe would be permitted (or encouraged?) outside of secular bounds. i dont remember that ever happening in high school, at a catholic school, but there wasn't a zeitgeist of religious zeal whereby religious themes would be pressed into english, math, history or poli-sci either. we had religion classes.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things.

Science teachers don't give a crap about those things enough to teach them in the classroom. Science doesn't care about religion. You still keep missing that. You perceive science completely ignoring religion as somehow "anti-religion". When was the last time you have EVER heard of a science teacher preaching "God is a myth"? What evidence do you have to support your fantasy-persecution?

teaching the matter, there is plenty of room to embrace and encourage secular awe and enthusiasm over the way the world works.

There's room, certainly, but what would someone LEARN from presenting such OPINIONS in a science classroom?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

life came from a rock 12 66.67%
life came from an intelligent designer 6 33.33%

Yaaay! that proves it, life came from a rock...

 

[Dr Grump]

My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things. It is foolish to even think that. And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.

I would be very suprised if any science teacher brought up a god, as it has nothing to do with science. It would be like teaching maths in an English class.

I absolutely think god is a myth as is ID, and I absolutely believe neither have any place in a science class. Want to talk religion, go to church or maybe a social science class. Where I grew up we had compulsory Religious education once a week...

 

[Foxfyre]

My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things. It is foolish to even think that. And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.

I would be very suprised if any science teacher brought up a god, as it has nothing to do with science. It would be like teaching maths in an English class.

I absolutely think god is a myth as is ID, and I absolutely neither have any place in a science class. Want to talk religion, go to church or maybe a social science class. Where I grew up we had compulsory Religious education once a week...

But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all. How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately? As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum. And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.

 

[Dr Grump]

But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all. How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately? As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum. And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.

You make some interesting points, but at the end of the day, history has shown over and over again that certain scientific theories have turned into fact. Nobody has even proven - in a believable, peer-reviewed manner - that a God exists. Only faith.

I don't know why ID has to be even mentioned on any test. Sure, if the science teacher explains the Big Bang Theory, and a kid puts his/her hand up and says "I, and many others, believe the Universe was created in seven days.", the teacher goes "As is your right. And I will not say anything to dissuade you from you beliefs. Here, we are talking science. If you want to talk religion, then there is an appropriate class for that." And there ends the discussion IMO...

 

[Foxfyre]

But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all. How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately? As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum. And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.

You make some interesting points, but at the end of the day, history has shown over and over again that certain scientific theories have turned into fact. Nobody has even proven - in a believable, peer-reviewed manner - that a God exists. Only faith.

I don't know why ID has to be even mentioned on any test. Sure, if the science teacher explains the Big Bang Theory, and a kid puts his/her hand up and says "I, and many others, believe the Universe was created in seven days.", the teacher goes "As is your right. And I will not say anything to dissuade you from you beliefs. Here, we are talking science. If you want to talk religion, then there is an appropriate class for that." And there ends the discussion IMO...

Yes you would handle it mostly appropriately if you handled it that way. If you look again on my post, the teachers were instructed to advise the students that I.D. would not be on the test and would not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

The whole thing can be handled if everybody just respects everybody and do not impose their personal beliefs on each other. The teacher cannot allow the religious fundamentalists to take over the class or control the discussion, but neither should he or she have license to direct the students in their religious beliefs or even express an opinion about them.

I received an excellent education in which I'm guessing 90% or more of my teachers DID believe in I.D. But never once was that concept pushed on us nor did it ever appear on a test. And except for one or two, I couldn't tell you what religion they were, what political party they supported, or anything about their personal religious or political beliefs. That's the way it ought to be.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

Why bring it up in the first place? Dr. Gump made a very good point: keep it out of the science classroom because it has nothing to do with SCIENCE. If a student brings up religion in a science classroom, the teacher should direct that student to their respective religious leaders, not acknowledge or dismiss beliefs but rather refer to the appropriate outlet. A science teachers is NOT there to acknowledge anything outside of SCIENCE.

This role has been established and re-established through the court systems. You cannot push your non-science agenda into a science classroom. Sorry.

 

[antagon]

My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things. It is foolish to even think that. And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.

I would be very suprised if any science teacher brought up a god, as it has nothing to do with science. It would be like teaching maths in an English class.

I absolutely think god is a myth as is ID, and I absolutely neither have any place in a science class. Want to talk religion, go to church or maybe a social science class. Where I grew up we had compulsory Religious education once a week...

But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all. How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately? As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum. And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.

if a student in english class insists upon interjecting 'nawamsayin?' every 4-5 words, should we validate that because millions of people follow suit? should we lend to the tradition of scientific illiteracy any differently than to english literacy? does this really support a characterization of a teacher as anti-religious or culturally intolerant.

if a kid thinks the world was made in seven days, he's an ignoramus, and embodies misinformation. a teacher wont have the time to refute his perspective, but i'd think its sufficient to say that's not what science has established, nor what he'll have to account for in the class. hasn't this kid been paying attention for the weeks preceding, or does this hypothetical depart from the realities of a science class?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would be very suprised if any science teacher brought up a god, as it has nothing to do with science. It would be like teaching maths in an English class.

I absolutely think god is a myth as is ID, and I absolutely neither have any place in a science class. Want to talk religion, go to church or maybe a social science class. Where I grew up we had compulsory Religious education once a week...

But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all. How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately? As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test. While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test. Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth. But it is not science. And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum. And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.

if a student in english class insists upon interjecting 'nawamsayin?' every 4-5 words, should we validate that because millions of people follow suit? should we lend to the tradition of scientific illiteracy any differently than to english literacy? does this really support a characterization of a teacher as anti-religious or culturally intolerant.

if a kid thinks the world was made in seven days, he's an ignoramus, and embodies misinformation. a teacher wont have the time to refute his perspective, but i'd think its sufficient to say that's not what science has established, nor what he'll have to account for in the class. hasn't this kid been paying attention for the weeks preceding, or does this hypothetical depart from the realities of a science class?

We KNOW that 'nawamsayin'' is poor English. But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally. We DON'T know how the universe got from point A to point B. We have a lot of scientists with various theories about that that have been evolving and developing over the period of time that we have records of scientific theory and discovery. We don't know whether something will turn up to amend or replace those theories in the next hour, next day, next week, or next eon. We certainly don't know all there is to know about science. We certainly don't have all the science that we will ever have to work with.

I don't believe the Earth was created in six 24-hour days--Genesis says six, not seven--a little precision please --as we define a 24-hour day. Few people do. But whatever a student believes about that is absolutely not the teacher's business to either affirm or deny. And if the teacher does not believe in Intelligent Design of any sort, that is his prerogative, but it is not his business to impress his religious beliefs on the kids. If I.D. cannot be supported via science, neither can it be denied via science. It is not the teacher's job to affirm or deny it. A good teacher will be honest with his I.D. students and agree with them that billions of people on Earth share their beliefs at least in part. But the belief itself is not science and therefore will not be included in the curriculum.

I simply don't understand why some people are struck by such apolexic responses to this stuff. It is so simple. And so harmless. And so inconsequential to science curriculum, why not peacefully co-exist with it regardless of your personal convictions?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

We KNOW that 'nawamsayin'' is poor English.

Just like we KNOW intelligent design is NOT science.

You can repeat the example with any other area. If a kid in math class asks the teacher about social studies, should the teacher stop to acknowledge the comment, or just refer to the social studies teacher? If a kid in a Spanish class wants to discuss spiritual beliefs, the teacher should SIMILARLY refer the child elsewhere as it has nothing to do with Spanish. And if a kid in a science class wants to bring up ID, the teacher should ALSO refer because ID has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

All of these examples have one thing in common: not dealing with things outside the realm of the class. The role of education is not to teach kids what we don't know. Society has no reason to promote things that lack knowledge or support.

But whatever a student believes about that is absolutely not the teacher's business to either affirm or deny.

That's completely false. If a child believes "nawamsayin" is part of the English language, it is very much an English teachers business to deny it.

I simply don't understand why some people are struck by such apolexic responses to this stuff. It is so simple. And so harmless. And so inconsequential to science curriculum, why not peacefully co-exist with it regardless of your personal convictions?

Stupidity IS NOT inconsequential in education. The purpose of science class is not just to teach facts, but process as well. That process dictates how we understand the universe, and is heavily driven by evidence based conclusions. ID directly contradicts that goal, and teaches that completely unsupported guesses are reasonable options, when they're not.

There is no reason to "peacefully co-exist" with ignorance and misinformation. Your beliefs have no validity. And that's the way they will remain.

 

[antagon]

if a student in english class insists upon interjecting 'nawamsayin?' every 4-5 words, should we validate that because millions of people follow suit? should we lend to the tradition of scientific illiteracy any differently than to english literacy? does this really support a characterization of a teacher as anti-religious or culturally intolerant.

if a kid thinks the world was made in seven days, he's an ignoramus, and embodies misinformation. a teacher wont have the time to refute his perspective, but i'd think its sufficient to say that's not what science has established, nor what he'll have to account for in the class. hasn't this kid been paying attention for the weeks preceding, or does this hypothetical depart from the realities of a science class?

We KNOW that 'nawamsayin'' is poor English. But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.

what part of what curriculum do you contend to be exploring these matters? somehow, i think the hypothetical of the fundie kid in an conceptual astrophysics or physical cosmology course is not worth preparing for. because the big bang model is representative of what we do know -- the basis of science altogether -- i think it is more valid than the credit you've attributed it. in highschool, this is a cursory exploration of the observable facts about the extent of the universe and what we know about its expansion from a central point. like kids who believe that they're justified in saying 'like, nawmsayin', kids who believe that science is presenting any disposition for or against a god, are missing the point that english has a structure and a style of communication, and respectively that science puts forward what is known, to the contrary of what you've contended, and that the proposals of scientific theory are based on the implications of that knowledge.

Genesis says six, not seven--a little precision please

you started it

If I.D. cannot be supported via science, neither can it be denied via science. It is not the teacher's job to affirm or deny it. A good teacher will be honest with his I.D. students and agree with them that billions of people on Earth share their beliefs at least in part.

if ID is a model whereby scientific discoveries elicit necessary recognition of intelligence in their nature, rather than merely the observation of the nature itself, without proposing the mechanism whereby intelligence effected the design or was availed the capacity to do so, the proposal of ID is deniable and an honest teacher would remain within their expertise in pointing out that science can't support the student's belief, notwithstanding the hordes which might. it overturns the claim which is inherent in many concepts of ID, to include some ways of interpreting einstein in his quote, that scientific discovery does lend to the conclusion that there is ID involved in the nature of the observation. because it is not a religious belief, i dont think a teacher would be anti-religious in dispelling it for its invalidity in a scientific forum. this is among reasons why einstein was not a teleologist. he enforced this discipline on himself, and that same discipline should be presented to younguns aiming to incorporate ideas of deity or this designer guy into science (as in into the classroom where science is taught or a paper which science is discussed).

this is not harmless because students should come away from science familiar with the confines of its purview and the methods of its acquisition of knowledge, as well as a primer in the masses of knowledge already available and the theories at its cutting edge. like any course, a non-sequitur like deity or design might reinforce what is central to the concept, but only if the instructor can recognize it and make that reinforcement, rather than some capitulation to an argumentum ad populum as you propose.

 

[Foxfyre]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe. But he does not teach it as science. It is not science. He explains that it is not science. And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing. Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

You make statements like this and then go on to show how and when it should come up in classroom teaching. Let's walk through this:

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain.

This is perfectly fine. Scientific teachings allow for us to say "I don't know".

If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.

No. Bad. This is not science. This in fact defies the basic tenants of science by acknowledging blind theories without supporting evidence. The GOOD science teacher simply points out the areas we don't understand, and moves on. If a student asks about those areas, the teacher once again states "we don't know", AND MOVES ON.

We do not make up ideas to fill in the gaps, nor do we acknowledge the ideas that other people made up to fill in the gaps. This is contradictory to scientific teaching. Similarly, the English teacher does not acknowledge or overview other forms of grammatical syntax. There is proper English syntax, and there is stuff that is not English.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

Oh stop your sad victimization. Your crap doesn't belong in the classroom in any capacity. The only "evil" here is your attempt to push your unsupported fanatical religious beliefs into a public school. The poor teacher is one who takes the time to acknowledge the countless ideas that similarly have no scientific background.

Or did you think yours was the only religion in the world? My guess is that you don't really want science teachers going over what Muslims believe are the missing pieces? What about Taoists? Buddhists? How many minutes should actually be put aside, in your mind, to acknowledge religious fairy tales from around the world so as to avoid "destroying" a weak faith that is so easily crushed by truth?

 

[Dr Grump]

But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.

However, over the past 500 years there have been plenty of unexplainable things, that, with time, have been explained due to science. A god, or gods, or whatever have never been explained or seen or even one iota of tangible proof been given in evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.

Again you show your lack of understanding of basic science.

Space/time is not a universal constant! It is RELATIVE to MOTION. As motion accelerates time slows down. Again this has been proven experimentally, so it is not debatable!

 

[Foxfyre]

But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.

However, over the past 500 years there have been plenty of unexplainable things, that, with time, have been explained due to science. A god, or gods, or whatever have never been explained or seen or even one iota of tangible proof been given in evidence.

There is no scientific evidence for god or gods or whatever. But that does not mean there is no evidence. There is no scientific proof for feelings of love or hope or speculation either. But we know such things exist because people consistently testify to them. The fact that hundreds of millions if not billions of people testify to experience with a deity cannot therefore be rationally discounted. Even science, if it acknowledges that people do feel love or hope or speculate despite sciences inability to falsify or verify that, then it has to rationally consider the possibility that people who testify that they have experienced a deity have in fact done so.

After all we have presumably some scientific evidence for the presence of ghosts or paranormal activity, but certainly science is not in universal agreement about whether the evidence is credible yet. But no scientist worth his salt would say that science has disproved or falsified such presence either even if the scientist himself is not a believer.

So again it comes down to a competent science teacher teaching science that we know to be science, explaining to the class that many of our concepts of our best science may be changed at any time when we make new discoveries and learn new things, and there are many things that science is not able to explain nor falsify at this time. Science cannot answer all questions of the universe.

And the teacher should also explain to his skeptical 'religious' students that they are not required to believe the scientific explanations that we have for creation, etc., but they will have to know them. And they will have to pass the test. In that way he teaches good science and he does not inappropriately attack the faith of his students nor do inappropriate indoctrination. And his students will be educated regardless of their religious views.

 

[JBeukema]

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steerpike]

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Intelligent Design outside of religious faith. There's no evidence to support it.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Intelligent Design outside of religious faith. There's no evidence to support it.

I have already illustrated using undisputed history to show that Plato, Einstein et al embraced it sans religious faith.

But even if you say they were just denying religious faith, there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.

Therefore no science teacher should be dismissing I.D. as only religious faith any more than he should dismiss any other reported phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science.