Devaluing "Intelligent Design" in 100 Words or Less (...Because I Like to Argue)

The "teaching" of Intelligent Design provides no useful function.

"Design" is an un-revisable, unfounded hypothesis; you either accept a creationist viewpoint, or you don't.

It argues from ignorance and personal incredulity, suggesting children should default to "god did it" whenever answers are not obvious.

There are no valid experiments to perform. (Asking god to design and deliver another animal won't produce results.)

"Irreducible complexity"—the entire platform ID rests upon—has been thoroughly debunked.

Critical thinking, repeatable experiments, and reasoning skills provide REAL benefits for children. The 'God of the Gaps' should remain in a relevant field, such as philosophy.