Intelligent Design is essentially a more sophisticated articulation of creationism, but with a secular bent, conceived to teach school children about the origins of human kind in ways that are reconcilable with the suppositions of Judaeo-Christian theology. Intelligent design and creationism should not be taught in public schools, nor included in any scientific curricula simply because its logic is contrary to anything resembling science.
Its core principle is that the complexity of living creatures did not happen by chance, but originated from the plans of a designer. This of course, fails to take into consideration the fact that such a designer would have to be even more complex, never mind the fact that said designer tends to have a lot of demands weighing upon Him, such as forgiving sins, annihilating our enemies, disapproving of our sexual practices and frowning down on our excesses.
It is poor science to take complex questions and answer them with even more complex theories, whereas evolution theory observes that the complexity of biological organisms and supposes that they originate from a simple principle. The intelligent design has absolutely no resonance with scientific standards, and I don’t mean that in the pat manner of it not having been ‘empirically proven,’ but that it resonates closer with an ability to challenge and question the nature of things, which is essential to true scientific inquiry.
Scientific inquiry operates on the assumption that all states of complexity which exist not just in organisms, but in chemistry & physics, the human mind, sociology are not just-so assumptions but have arrived at such due to governing principles, whether its evolution, electromagnetic interactions, or biochemical reactions. Intelligent design on the other hand, suggests that organismic complexity is there because it’s there, because Someone said so, and inquiry stops there. That’s no way to teach science.