[sz_matyas]

While the debate is interesting so far, I still haven't heard much response on the teaching of ID (NOT CREATIONISM, though they are somewhat related). ID is science, creationism when it attaches itself would belong in a philosophy class (which actually was where science was taught through the 17th century and in many universities into the 19th century, lacking a science department/classes).

@grahamiam: If you have a problem with the church and Galileo, you should probably go read a history of science textbook. His work was accepted by the church and even sponsored by them until he started actively taunting the pope. In his famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo used three characters a Heliocentric, a Geocentric and an undecided skeptic. While the pope really should have fit into the character of the skeptic, Galileo placed him as the Geocentrist, whom he named Simplicius, a double insult. Galileo further upset him by placing outdated arguments in the mouth of Simplicius to have him get trapped and appear the fool.

Galileo was given the chance to rewrite this before publication (the church allowed research into heliocentrism at the time, just it couldn't be stated as a proven fact, just as the church allows research into evolution without allowing it to be stated as fact). He chose not to and because he had written the book under conditional approval and broke the conditions he was banned and his arrogance after the fact led to his persecution and house arrest.