I remember an 8th grade history class taught by the coach. Time came when we had to cover Moses, Jesus, & Mohammed. We spent two days on it. One part was the lecture, the second we drew a map.

I don’t see anything inherently wrong in covering ID in a science class, any more than covering the Bohr model of the atom vs the Schrodinger model.
It’s a matter of emphasis.
In that, I believe, the emphasis should be on evolution.
ID is an aside.

And to both sides, if you’re secure in your faith, or if you’re secure in your positivist materialism, then why should the mere mention of some outside view be perceived as such an imminent threat?
Get real.

The kids are in much more danger from the chemicals they drink out of the water fountain.

Ouch! Did I say that?

I am still waiting for you guys to show me your Progressive street cred. And when am I going to get some love on that blogroll of yours?

Keep in mind that the biggest reason scientists and those interested in science attempt to debunk ID is because it is being actively promoted as scientific.

Much the same goes for atheism in general: I would not bother even self-identifying as an atheist (in the same sense that I don’t self-identify as an aunicornist) is because the religious don’t keep their beliefs private and out of my face.

I’m not uber-liberal, am I?