<p>We have this urge to go along with what’s “fair,” and I know personally (<– lived in Texas) that that’s the argument thrown out. It’s only fair to teach both sides, it’s only fair to present everything, etc. etc.</p>
<p>But really, every other thing taught in a high school or undergraduate classroom had to fight its way through decades of peer review. I strongly doubt undergrads in 1910 were learning quantum physics or one of its several alternatives. The scientific community is like a great chain, with everyone tugging in his own direction. Thus, the chain moves slowly, but with wisdom. </p>
<p>Intelligent design wants to skip out of this whole process. What’s so fair about giving it a free trip through the scientific community? When every other thing we learn needs to go through that process, what’s so fair and evenhanded about letting intelligent design cut to the front of the line?</p>
<p>Honestly, if ID had merit, within decades, it will appear in standard curriculum and academic circles simply because that’s the nature of the academic and scientific process. This whole means of attempting to put it there artificially sort of belies the unscientific nature of the entire thing. </p>
<p>In truth, I really hate the old ID controversy. For centuries, people have argued about whether or not it was possible to infer the existence of god from perceived design in the universe. This was one of the most popular forms of teleological arguments for the existence of god. Philosophers quickly realized exactly how horrid an argument it was, and it was kind of buried as a footnote in history.</p>
<p>Then along comes intelligent design, and because it parades as science, it seems new and fresh, despite the fact that there existed thousands of works on the subject before you or I or Behe had ever been born. And now it’s going to have to go through that struggle again.</p>
<p>The existence or nonexistence of god has remained one of philosophy’s most pressing questions, and it should stay within a philosophy class. There’s nothing scientific about it.</p>