Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[Inverted Things]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Intelligent design may or may not be religious, but I would hardly call it science. It makes no testable hypotheses, and is (as far as one can tell) unverifiable.

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

From what I can tell, Intelligent design is interested in explaining how a creator *could have* created the Earth and what we see and so forth. Sounds like a serious inquiry to me.

When I took physics classes in college, my professors were quick to express their disdain for untestable systems, such as string theory.

I would think that it's not much of a leap to suppose that many physicists feel this way. Untestable pseudo-scientific theories tend to get a bit more scientific press than theological one like intelligent design.

String theory makes great mathematics, and may one day make great physics... if we get to the point where we can test it.

By the same token, intelligent design is great theological speculation, and may one day make great science... if we get to the point where we can test it.

String theory gets some respect because is is mathematical in nature, and physics and mathematics have always has a symbotic nature. Intelligent design gets little scientific respect since Judeo-Christian religions have a poor record at determining scientific facts.

The problem with intelligent design is that all attempts to detect a diety have failed. If we cannot detect a diety, then we cannot determine if intelligent design is true.

[Inverted Things]

Micro-Intelligent design is very, very real.  One of the more oft-cited examples of micro-evolution is actually an example of ID in work.  The breeding of dogs is an example of ID at work.  The example I am referring to is the breeding of dogs.

Let’s say I want a dog that is capable of surviving in cold temperatures, has good endurance and works well in packs.  I have several.  I have a breed that is good in the cold, a second that has tremendous endurance and a third that is a natural pack hunter.  Through cross breeding for a few generations I produce the dog I want.

This is Intelligent Design, not evolution.  I have created the breed I wanted.  ID does not have to mean God in his heaven created species at the time and place of his choosing.  It can mean I in my backyard create a new species to meet my needs.

The problem with evolution is that the predicted transition species are not in the fossil records.  The problem with ID is that it is, essentially, cannot be proven at this time, and possibly ever.  For both of them the absence of evidence cannot be considered evidence of absence.

However, at the micro level, both are demonstrably true.

You assume humans are intelligent.