Teaching kids to pose idiocy, wild-fliers or WAGS to oppose well-proven theory that all kids should know, is proven to make them stupid. If there IS a proliferation of hypotheses, teach them. But it is pedagogic malpractice to teach hooey just for the sake of suggesting criticism. Teaching false critique is not the way to learn good critique.

Fuller's argument would make sense were he talking about well-evidenced and well thought out contests, like the fight between Steady State and Big Bang prior to Wilson's and Penzias's fortuitous discovery of the echo that disproved Steady State and supported Big Bang.

Intelligent design so far is vacuous as hypothesis, and completely dead as theory. If Fuller's argument is correct, ID still doesn't get in the door — it doesn't measure up to Fuller's standards.

Pigs are hard to control. I've tried.

The difference is that geocentrism has been falsified. ID hasn't been.

ID is careful not to propose any falsifiable theories; that doesn't make it science. For example, the eminent IDist Robert Newman hypothesized that a demon can control one pig, but unless he can obtain the cooperation of a demon, I don't know how that hypothesis could be tested.

Paley's arguments should be taught, but in a historical context, in which Darwin carefully studied them and demonstrated why he was wrong.

Laff.

You're right, the history of science should be taught, but should geocentrism be taught as though its possible that the sun really is revolving around the earth?

Geocentrism should be taught from the perspective of the people who believed it, giving the reasons why it was believed. Then the arguments for current theories can be given in the proper context. If you are worried about children believing in geocentrism after hearing these things then perhaps the evidence/arguments for heliocentrism aren't as strong as I thought. I'd say the same thing about ID.

The difference is that geocentrism has been falsified. ID hasn't been.

You laugh, but there are plenty of good reasons to teach about geocentrism and other items in the history of science.

You're right, the history of science should be taught, but should geocentrism be taught as though its possible that the sun really is revolving around the earth? Similarly, Paley's arguments should be taught, but in a historical context, in which Darwin carefully studied them and demonstrated why he was wrong. If we teach children that the sun really might revolve around the earth, or that ID is an alternate explanation to evolution, we're just filling their minds with junk.

Maybe Fuller's right, but there's no reason to single out evolutionary theory; other theories ought to be challenged as well, just in case they are wrong.

I agree.

Why, for example, shouldn't students learn about geocentrism? It might inspire one of them to show the sun really does revolve around the earth!

You laugh, but there are plenty of good reasons to teach about geocentrism and other items in the history of science.

But if this is a biology class, I think ID would be the showcase theory. We would want to make sure arguments for and against it's being a scientific hypothesis are presented. And we would want the students to have to really think it through. I don't know if high school biology teachers would be sophisticated enought to present both sides. So I don't know if it could be properly taught. Another reason to wait until college. Or homeschool.