Jane says "What I want my children to learn in science class is how to assess evidence dispassionately." This must mean that e.g. they should be taught that (contemporary) science considers it a proven fact that there is no intelligent life on the Moon but that the question of existence of intelligent life in our universe, besides us, is open. So is the question of the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". I think Jane's children should be taught this difference between verified facts (as a mathematician I am very cautious with the word 'proven') and open questions. Rather than the difference between incommensurable notions of faith and reason. There are many varieties of what is called evolutionary theory and they have many scientifically expressible open questions. The existence of an Intelligent Designer is a question more of a "world-view" than of a scientific nature.

I believe one day science will find a convincing answer to the question of intelligent life in our universe (and existence would be easier to verify than non-existence). This is belief, not faith. Religious faith -- at least its Christian version -- is belief expressible in a logically coherent (though not self-evident) form PLUS Something else. This "Something else" has nothing to do with science and very little with reason, this "Something else" is part of what Pascal had in mind with his famous "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point."

(Comment continued) However, I also believe that science will never find a convincing answer to the question of the existence of an Intelligent Designer who drives the evolutionary process in our universe: the alternative of it being self-driven will always remain. Because if God exists in the way the three Judaistic religions interpret Him, He would hardly want to force his acceptance upon us. Namely, religious faith has also its moral aspect, so it must mean more than the acceptance of the existence of Alfa Centauri or the truthfulness of the Pythagoras Theorem.

So I think ID -- in the form presented by e.g. Dembski, not the naive creationists -- has only a negative scientific value by pointing to gaps in available theories. Trying to fill these gaps with pre-existing religious faith is not science. It is "faith seeking understanding" as put by Augustine and Anselm, which is a legitimate intellectual endeavour but it is not (natural) science. And it is also theologically dangerous because it threatens to see God reduced to the historically discredited "God of the gaps".

I see the NSW Greens are now calling for funding to be cut from schools who teach ID as science.
There is nothing wrong with this, as long as the same standards apply to teaching global warming mythology in the science class as well.

t.u.s

It was clear stated in the USA that “intellectual design” was one of wordly fictions used to substitute known passages in a book on creation published in 1989 in order to bypass a government ban impost on teaching biblical stories in American schools.

In a place where race and caste are the most to be employed (read: mateship) no schooling essential at all.

Why not to teach how to clean toilets (there is a college in Singapore already) rather than of universe and engineering? It is more practical while “negotiating” further agreements with employers if any.

When a scientist conducts a experiement he has faith that test tubes' size is marked on the side is indeed fact. He or she has faith that the chemicals are as marked - so faith is a part of science. However, these things can be tested. Science is mostly reason and relating to the testable.
We have faith in our friends and partners. We have faith in our fellow citizens. These things are tested over the years and depending on the things that happen in our lives we can determine who are the fair dinkum ones. It is what is "fair dinkum" that must remain the highest of ideals and it is here that we often need guidance. This is where religion and reason comes into it in the ability to test and determine if the processes are producing true happiness.
Religions can only be known by the fruits that they produce and how strongly they hold to the postives. Science-based enquiry can be helpful here as well.
Incidently, is it just me or is there something ironic and thus funny in the way certain churches are evolving in their thinking to keep the God industry viable. These same churches often poo, poo post-modernist thinking and yet are, ironically, proving the truth of post-modernism.
God designed us infidels just as God designed Fords. He designed Fords better than Holdens. Thus while Fords are superior and therefore Holdens inferior - this is only in certain aspects such as Ford GTHO's appeal and grunt. (Sorry T.U.S., even though a Ford - Cobras are wankmobiles. Shonga I concede that Monaros also produce a strange but predictable reaction in most males and some females.) Generally speaking however, Holdens are superior in certain aspects such as their ability to get a laugh or strengthen the arms of people who have to wrestle with the doors to get them shut. No seriously Monaro GTS are fine just not as awe inspiring as GTHO. Black Pontiac Trans Am is The Car for the discerning Infidels like me (sorry Bandit).

Still rattling on. - So applyng this to the ID debate it stands to reason (and a lot of faith) that children should be taught that Ford GTHO Falcons are to be Praised (in religious and manual-training classes); that ID is a religious proposition (in religious instructon and drama, especially, comedy); that evolution is a generally accepted and proven scientific theory, however, make sure that those that doubt the science are shown (as is the case now) how you test such a fact; how you set about to refute rather than just dispute on faith-based premises said facts (in science classes).

Also, one last parting point. Caro speaks as if gravity is a given. Well I know there is simply no such thing as gravity. The fact is, acccording to the lads down the road, this world sucks. Refute that