Right from the outset I need to set the record straight on something: Intelligent Design is the silliest bit of new-speak I have ever encountered. Whether or not there is a prime motivator is of no interest to scientists. It is entirely possible that an intelligent force did put the universe in motion,that is not something science can answer, nor is it something scientists would claim it could.
What they can claim is a fair amount of understanding of what unfolded once the universe was set in motion, and roughly how far back that was. I’ll give you a hint: it was not 12,000 years ago. Why some people insist on that particular number is beyond me. I get how they came about it, vaguely, I just don’t get why they get caught up on it. Can’t your faith allow for some gaps in the details? Strike that, I know it can. After all we are talking about people who believe contradictory versions of the same events (you know, Luke and Matthew should have had an editing session.)
Really though, I don’t care what you chose to believe. I only get upset when you try to force those beliefs on others and threaten society’s general well being. That is what happens when you try to force Creationism (seriously, I’m standing firm with this) into a science class. Leave it in social studies to teach that some people believe the universe is 12,000 years old and that it was created, all as we see it now, minus mankind’s influence since then, in six days. That’s fine, maybe even important, because those people have had an influence on just about every society currently in existence. It does not, however, belong in a science class.
Science is about testing ideas about how the universe works. You can’t test Creationism, pure and simple. Evolution has been tested, over and over. It is the best explanation for how life came to be in the form it is now. It relies on multiple disciplines and discussing it allows for students to learn about all of those. It allows for the opportunity to develop the skills you might need if you want to go into a field where the scientific method is essential, most notably medicine.
Which brings to mind the most obvious harm done by wanting to shoe horn Creationism into a science class and refute evolution. By undermining the teaching of the scientific method, you are making it that much harder to train the next generation of engineers, doctors, meteorologists, nurses, and chemists. I’ve heard the argument from the anti choice side of the abortion debate that an aborted “baby” could have been the one to cure cancer. That requires one hell of an assumption. What I find particularly curious is that these people also fall down on the side that would almost guarantee we never find a cure for cancer by making sure the next generation does not have the know how to do it.
Again, believe what you will, even if you hurt yourself doing it (though I’d prefer you didn’t.) When, however, you make the world a less certain place by impeding learning I have to take a stand, for myself, for the people I love and for the greater good of all mankind.