Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

On the contrary. Evolution IS testable. Evolution makes predictions. Evolution has evidence. While a lot of the evidence is forensic evidence, it makes predictions about what will be found, and it also can make repeatble predictions in the lab.

Except, of course, you are totally mistaken about evolution. It meets the standardns for science.1) It has evidence for it.
2) It makes predictions that have been demonstrated to occur,
3) It is testable.
4) It explains the available data.
5) It is falsifiable.

There is where you are making a mistake. You are assuming that 'design' must mean a designer. However, you can get the same results as having a designer when you have a self replication with variation, and a filter in place. When it comes to biological evolution, there is the filter of 'natural selection'.This principle can be demonstrated with computer models that take simple rules for 'reproduction', add variation, and then 'select' for
those that meet a 'survival charactertic' rule. From those simple 'rules', you can get complex shapes that are more 'fit' to accomplish whatever goal you are striving for. IN the case of evoltion, the 'goal' is to reproduce the next generation.

Not really.Evolution doesn't care about HOW an organism came into existance. It's total focus is on how the population of that organism will change over time.

An how does the religious scripture of a bronze age goatherders mean anything when it comes to science?What is the scientific evidence that this myth has any connection to physical reality?

So, your entire arguemetn FOR "intelligent design' is one of 'personal incrediblity".Oh, we don't know , so 'God did it'?How is that science?

So what potentially can be a test for 'intelligent design'.

Then, you will agree then, since it is philophy it has no business being taught as science.

How does expertise of a geophsysist matter when it comes to biological evolution?As for that biology teacher.. let us look at the place he teaches.From the 'about us' section of the college he teaches at and from their 'our philosphy' section So, you have one scientist who is making comments about an area of study that is not his field, and the other one is a teacher in a college that proclaims that the bible is the infallible word of god.Is that the best you can do? An appeal to authority for one, and the other one has an obvious religius axe to grind.

I think the point is that Intelligent Design doesn't explain anything on it's own. It has no evidence for it. It has no predictive powers. It is a statement of faith by some believers who want to believe that 'God did it'.It's entire scientific existance is based on attacking evolution, usually a strawman of evolution. For example, the insistnace that
a 'missing link' has to be produced shows that there is a lack of understanding of that 'missing links' are merely a media term, since
all fossils are transitional (unless the whole family went extinct).When a transitional fossil is found between two other types of forms, that isn't a 'missing link' in the eyes of the creationist, .. but it makes two more 'gaps' where they insist on knowing what the missing link is.If/when 'I.D.' can come up with evidence FOR it's hypothesis, rather than rely on 'Gee, it's too complicated for me to understand, it must be god', and for them to get out of the politics, stop worrying about attacking evolution, and get it's OWN science in place, then it can be considered. Until it has more than politcs and attacks on evolution, it is not science.