As an ID scientist I certainly see no scientific reason why ID science should not appear in science classes. However, consider if you will, the recent words of leading ID critic PZ Myers�

As a member of the tax paying public in a democratic society, PZ myer�s views are to be respected (as are the views of all Darwinists). Therefore, while I see no reason on scientific grounds for excluding ID from public education I see strong reason on democratic grounds for excluding ID science at this time. As much as possible, citizens (such as PZ myers) should not be required (through taxation) to support any position anthetical to his or her core belief(s).

Darwinists however are not the only ones with core beliefs -- and just as Darwinists have rights, so do IDists and Creationists. Nor should anyone be required to make statements such as the above in order to have one�s basic rights heard and respected. Like it or not, the Darwinist claim that randomness and natural culling produced/created all species is antithetical to the creationist claim that life, its diversity and its structure, was created by God. It is also in conflict with my own understand of stochastic processes.

So, just as PZ myers should not be forced (through taxation) to support ID science or creationist science, so should creationists and ID�ers not be forced (through taxation) to support Darwinian science (in public schools). A democracy by defintion, can be neither a theocracy nor a �sciocracy.� This is not to say however that RM&NS must not be taught, but only that random variations and selective filtering must not be extrapolated beyond mere variation (agreed upon by all) to Darwinian speciation/creation (hyper-controversial). It seems to me that what can be taught as science in public schools in a democratic society is only what the public can sufficiently agree upon. This means all science up to and including RM&NS micro-evolution but not macroevolution.

One claim that is frequently made in this debate is that ID science is �stealth creationism� and that it subsequently violates the �separation of church and state.� Unfortunately for ID detractors there exists the counter argument that Darwinism, is actually �randomism� or �materialism� and is therefore the real violator of �separation of church and state.� While church-state issues are certainly of importance, if there is once again, no democratic consences as to what constitutes religion, another category may well be required, perhaps -- �Separation of Hyper-Controversial Theories and State.�

At this time, theories of design/origin are hyper-controversial. �Remove the Controversy� would recommend the removal of all origins science (creations science, ID science and Darwinian science) from public schools. This policy would hold until such time as sufficient public consences and/or peaceful order comes to pass in this area. With the origin controversy removed, students, teachers and parents could then live and learn in peace without being �called to arms� to fight for one cause or another. Those wishing to learn about Darwinism, creationism or ID would be totally free to do so, but at private schools or at extracurricular events or debates � or perhaps on the internet where it seems most people learn about life and origins theories anyway.

The idea is that you do not fight World War Three on school grounds -- you take it elsewhere. The other idea is that public institutions in a democratic society must respect the tax paying public and the full range of public beliefs.<2>

Would �Remove the Controversy�<3> make school more boring than say �Teach the Controversy�? Well, yes it would, but not terribly so. There is so much more to science than just origins/design theories. Besides, the exciting origins debates can always be extracurricular. For my part I used to watch hockey. I now find that the ID/Darwinism debate has all rough and tumble excitement of hockey while being more intellectually stimulating. Origins science is indeed a fascinating field of inquiry -- but anyone wishing to play this particular game had better wear a helmet and sign the release form stating next of kin.

William Brookfield � Cognitive Monistic Infodynamicist (bitscience.org)

1. The Deniable Darwin - Darwinism Design and Public Education.

2. This also includes respect for the public�s (democratic) right to question scientists in publicly chosen (democratic) hearings such as ones upcoming in Kansas scheduled for May 5-7 and May 12-14.

3. Please note that I am not promoting �Remove the Controversy� but am instead presenting it as another option as to how districts might proceed. How school districts choose to deal with the controversy will depend upon local conditions not addressed here. Depending on the situation I would support either �Teach the Controversy� or �Remove the Controversy. One could even have a three tiered system in which;

#1. That which is hypercontroversial is removed.
#2. That which is merely controversial is taught, in "teach the controversy" mode
and
#3. That which is agreed upon is taught as true.