There's no reason religion and science can't inhabit the same discussion. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean Christian, either. Virtually every religion on the planet endorses some kind of intelligent design. Doesn't the failure to address this in public education put blinders on the students with regards to the beliefs of the vast majority of the human race?
In answer, I offer the following explanation of my views on the subject. I have shortened it for the sake of brevity.
1) There are LOTS of reasons religion and science can’t inhabit the same discussion, especially in schools. The first is that their aims are in conflict: the religious perspective posits an explanation of the world’s origin (Genesis, etc.) and then seeks scientific truth within that context. Pure science posits no such explanation, and thus does not have to rationalize its conclusions. It is impossible to reconcile these positions, because pure science cannot be confined within the limits set by Biblical authority or any other belief-based authority. The search for Truth must allow for questioning all perspectives, which religion by definition does not allow. Religion asserts that it has an answer. Science only asserts that there are conclusions that can be drawn from repeated observations.
The second reason is that many scientific truths are in direct conflict with asserted religious truths. For example, Buddhists believe that the universe is infinite in time and space, and filled with an infinite number of worlds like our own. They believe that there are two realms above our ordinary world, the realm of form (rupa-dhatu) and the realm of formlessness (arupa-dhatu), and that below these is the realm of desire (kama-dhatu). There is no verifiable explanation for any of this-—it is a matter of faith and personal intuition. Therefore any scientific theory which holds, for example, that survival of the species is based on genetic trial and error, will ALWAYS be in conflict with religious teachings because it does not first acknowledge “God” or "Buddha" or "realm" or anything that is not a direct product of repeated human observation. In fact, including “God” –an admittedly unverifiable factor—into any scientific explanation defeats the very purpose of the scientific endeavor. Science’s aim is to look for a more direct cause and effect.
All this is not to say that it is impossible to reconcile science and religion. But in the limited context of the grade-school curriculum, we need to acknowledge that children should be taught science and the scientific method, and religious teachings have no place there. Until religious assertions, i.e. that “God” created the world, can be proven by scientific method, they should never be offered as scientific truth.
2) I never said that Intelligent Design means just Christian. Of course every religion on the planet tends to embrace intelligent design, because that theory allows faith-based assertions to enter scientific discourse. Every religion on the planet has its own version of cosmological explanation. And like all historical myths, each particular cosmology tends to justify the religion’s existence. Therefore, every religious authority feels threatened by modern science when it attempts to offer an alternative non-religious cosmology. Religion’s authority is weakened when its fundamental justifications are shown to be mere myths and storytelling. That is why, for example, Galileo in the early 1600s was forced to recant his groundbreaking scientific observations, because they conflicted with and threatened the church’s authority.
Again, study intelligent design and it becomes obvious that it is simply an attempt to insert “God” into the scientific inquiry into the workings of biological development. The scientific community has largely dismissed the theory as unsound and pretextual. The problem is that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so it is hard for scientists to refute Intelligent Design on grounds of truth because we’re not exactly sure what the ultimate truth is. But most of the world’s scientists remain certain that the theory of evolution is WAY closer to truth than any theory of intelligent design. And our students should be taught only those theories that have the best chance at approximating the truth.
3) The failure to address Intelligent Design in public education does not “put blinders on the students with regards to the beliefs of the vast majority of the human race.” It opens their eyes to the beauty and power of scientific truth. Look at the world around you, the car you drive, the phone you use, the roads, the planes, the clothes you wear, the entire structure of civilization—it is all the fruit of the scientific process. And by “scientific process” I mean the drawing of conclusions based on repeated observations. This process allows us to study and learn how the world works. Its endless aim is the collective increase of humankind’s knowledge and understanding. The effectiveness of scientific inquiry is weakened when it has to cite religious authority on a subject we have no way of verifying other than by faith.
Again, this is not to say that scientists cannot be religious, or vice versa. Many of the world’s foremost thinkers have been very devout. But there comes a point when science ceases to be religious and when religion ceases to be scientific, and that point is reached in the labroom and in the grade school classroom. When a science teacher has 40 minutes in which to explain modern biological science, it is counterproductive to qualify the whole thing by saying that, in essence, it is only a theory and that other theories exist. Do churches do the same thing in bible school? Do they qualify the story of Adam and Eve by explaining that it is just a theory and that actually there is this other theory called evolution out there? Of course not.
This brings me to the central point: Because modern science tends to expose children to facts which make them question religious teachings, parents and religious authorities are worried that children are questioning their faith. We do not actually know with certainty how the world was created, and scientists admit as much. And because this flies in the faith of faith-based teachings, Intelligent Design is born. Intelligent Design, whatever its scientific merits may be, is at bottom a way to tell children that “You don’t have to question your faith. There is a theory out there that says God in fact created everything.” Although the theorists shy away from actually using the terms “God” or “Allah” or “Jehovah” it is clear what they mean when they say that the world was created by an “Intelligent Designer.” In fact, William Dembski, in his 1998 book “The Design Inference” even lists God or an alien life force as two possible options.
Put simply, Intelligent Design theories have simply not achieved enough scientific validity to deserve a place in grade school classrooms. As the Wikipedia article cited above notes, “the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design ‘and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life’ are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs. The scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience.” Virtually every other educational subject is required to pass this peer-review test before it is taught in our schools, and science should be no exception.
