ID supporters try to get mileage out of the ambiguity of "theory" arising from the different conceptions of "theory" by laypeople and scientists.
This excerpt should shed some light on the scientific meaning of "theory":
Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions. ID comes in two parts. The first is a simple critique of evolutionary theory, to the effect that Darwinism, as an explanation of the origin, the development, and the diversity of life, is fatally flawed. The second is the assertion that the major features of life are best understood as the result of creation by a supernatural intelligent designer. To understand ID, then, we must first understand modern evolutionary theory (often called "neo-Darwinism" to take into account post-Darwinian modifications).
It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not "just a theory." It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate "theory" with "hunch" or "wild guess," the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of "atomic theory" and "gravitational theory" as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the factuality of gravity.
Postmodern obscurantism and the call for multiple perspectives in education are making it easier for creeds like ID to succeed, as I teasingly tried to tell another blogger.
Teaching multiple perspectives is now all the rage in edland.
Multiple perspectives puts you on the cutting edge of
multicultural education. Besides, real science is so terribly
Eurocentric and marginalizes non-dominant groups.
See for yourself what the cutting edge has to say:
The curriculum of the mainstream is Eurocentric and male-centric. It fully ignores the experiences, voices, contributions, and perspectives of non-dominant individuals and groups in all subject areas. All educational materials including textbooks, films, and other teaching and learning tools present information in a purely Eurocentric, male-centric format. This stage is harmful for both students who identify with mainstream culture as well as individuals from non-dominant groups. It has negative consequences for the former because, according to Banks (1993) it:
Bush, to his credit, finds no evidence of intelligent design in schools, reports ScrappleFace:
Hat tip: Joanne Jacobs
(2005-08-04) -- Entering the debate over the teaching of origins for the first time, President George Bush today said he sees "no evidence of intelligent design in America's public schools."
"A lot folks claim that the public school system is irreducibly complex, so there must have been an intelligent designer," said Mr. Bush, "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."
The president, a professed Christian, said his only hope for a better future in American education rests on his faith in "the survival of the fittest."