I have done extensive thought about the intelligent design theory. The bad comments coming from the evolutionists are flagrant. As a student seeking graduate study in philosophy, I feel that the Teleological argument & the Cosmological (although this is not from my understanding this one has no relation to intelligent design) arguments should be mentioned when a teacher starts making statements about our possible origins, since there exists a few scientists who do not believe in evolution from nothing (the teleological arguement has a greater following).
However, to teach an entire class (like the statues of Daedalus, my knowledge in this ( see Plato's Meno towards the end, before Meno is led to the conclusion that virtue is right opinion) that run away if not tied down, I cannot seem to remember the entire wants of the creationists) seems more religious based. But to include it some point when inferences are being made to Man's possible origins is perfectly fine.
The whole intelligent design theory, if strictly based on tradditional biblical support, does have some difficulties based on sciences understanding. However, taken for what it is, a philosophical theory, which in my opinion is also scientific, the teleological argument is perfectly fine. But, the ontological argument, which is also the weakest argument (My epistemology teacher Michael expalined this) since it is actually explaining only a necessary condition of God, or any supposed perfect being, is definitely a religious based argument.
A reduction to the absurd can show how those against the creationist theory(some at least) are wrong:
If, 1. R then [~B* B]
2. ~[B*B] since, contradictions are false
So,3. ~R modus tollens
R= Any (notice I did not say some) part of creationist theory should not be allowed to be taught in Public schools
B= It will free our schools from religious based and not scientific. (By way of logic we know that this is not all true)
I have not been keeping track of the current debate, but I do know that the entire creationist theory is not biblically based.
I will not get into all the specifics of both arguments but I do know that they are:
(a) based from the empirical
(b) more believable than a theory that says we come out of nowhere.
Now the teleological argument is an argument from analogy, and the cosmological argument stops a viscious regress, but runs into difficulties for some to who do not want to believe in a self-caused agent. If we stop with most evolutionist's idea of where we came from, we run into many problems. No theory can circumvent the philosophical problems created by the evolutionist's idea of Man's origins. I contend that
(a) There exists some evolutionists who belief in a creator
(b) If these 2-arguments are not allowed into the picture, then no teacher has the right to infer Man's possible origins, since the former theories are from the empirical.