[That’s different than ordering teachers to teach ID before ID is shown to be a viable scientific theory.]
A little confused here, if it’s a good idea to teach different lines of evolution hypothesis in an attempt to close some serious gaps in the old model, then what makes the old model more ‘viable’ than the idea that there is design in nature? Or in showing that things are irreducibly complex and don’t really support the idea of NEW information through gradual accumulation of small mutatiions? It would seem to me that exploring all angles in an unproven hypothesis would only serve to either strengthen the old model, or suggest that other lines should be investigated? Validity comes from including all evidences, not suppressing some ideas that don’t jive with an old model. If ID simply said’ God done it, and that’s all anyone need know’ then you’d of course have a valid point, however, that’s not what ID is about. ID presents scientific evidence that, based on educated opinion, points to design. Evolution presents scientific evidence, that based on educated opinion, seems to point to common descent. Both are valid opinions based on scientific evidences..
>>A little confused here, if it’s a good idea to teach different lines of evolution hypothesis in an attempt to close some serious gaps in the old model, then what makes the old model more ‘viable’ than the idea that there is design in nature?<<
Any scientific theory taught needs to meet the standards for what a scientific theory is - i.e. accurately making predictions and/or being testable. The current theory of evolution has made many accurate predictions about nature while the ID model has not.
That’s not a specific knock on ID but rather a general standard that crosses borders of all the sciences.
(and BTW its one reason physicists are discussing giving up on string theory - no valid predictions).