Don't know how many of you heard about the decision in Kansas to start teaching Intelligent Design (ID hereafter) as an alternative theory, in addition to evolution (read the CNN article here), but I thought it was pretty amazing that in the entire Technorati blogosphere regarding that article out there, there isn't one blog post I could find that thought that decision was at all a good thing. Everyone was busy ridiculing everyone from Americans or Kansans to Bush. :)

I thought I'd try and process the whole thing as well (warning, this could get long, and it's pretty unedited):
I think are tons of misunderstandings when it comes to ID and that decision.

For example:

"Kansas now has to teach ID as fact"

That's not true - they now are ALLOWED to teach that Intelligent Design exists as one possible explanation. They're still NOT allowed to teach ID as fact (which is a very good thing, since it really is not "scientific fact", it's a proposed explanation).

"ID is basically the cave man's explanation of things you can't understand - you see a lightning bolt - that must have been Zeus. You see an incredibly complex cell - must have been God."

The problem is that exactly that step is taken by evolutionists as well, they just don't see it. You see an incredibly complex cell - that must have been Evolution. I'm capitalizing that word since at that point in their logic it becomes more than a scientific theory, it transcends science and shows their presupposition of materialism. Evolutionists would say "Stick to Ockham's razor" which says you always should pick the most simple solution to a question if all else is equal. The problem is - what's "simpler" - supernatural creation or random sudden appearance? Who decides what's simpler? Well, YOU do!

"ID is basically about bringing religion into science, leave religion out of the science classroom"

It is NOT about religion- you're not saying a thing about who "the Designer" is, how many designers there are, whether it/he/she/they still exist(s), or even whether the Designer is good or evil. Sure, most if not all ID proponents are Christians, but that doesn't mean the theory itself is religious. Don't toss the theory out the window just because you don't like the people who put forward the theory or their world view (Same goes for Christians regarding evolution and evolutionists, BTW).

"ID is unscientific because it is neither verifiable nor disprovable."

First off - a theory doesn't need to be verifiable in order to be a scientific theory, it needs to be disprovable. And ID is easily disprovable - take as many of the same cells as you want and let them randomly mutate as many times as you want - if you can observe just one cell develop a flagellum (basically a motor with which some one-celled creatures can move about) on its own, you've disproven ID.
I see more of a problem trying to disprove the theory of evolution: How would you even go about it, since the answer would always be "Well it happened over a course of millions of years, so of course you can't disprove it with that experiment here and now without taking millions of years yourself."

So there ya go, a few (quite random) thoughts on misunderstandings about ID.

A couple of VERY humorous, satirical (and critical) looks at ID are the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Intelligent Falling.

I really think it's important that as Christians we don't go running around claiming ID is the ONLY way to view things, because those two links show what our reputation is in the world. Remember that believing the literal interpretation of Genesis is not a condition for a relationship with God. ;)

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this whole deal.