As far as point 4 I would extend it even further. There many be many things in the natural world that may be beyond our current scope to be able to fully empirically study, due to our limitations of technology and our current ways of thinking. Then there is also the case that other phenomenon is supernatural.
As far as ID it may not really be able to be fully empirically studied. It seems to me right now though it functions mainly as a “negative” hypothesis, until it can really propose a set of mechanisms by which the “designer” works. Even if they are supernatural and beyond our scope of being able to find out, there would have to be some natural phenomenon going on in conjunction with it, so it would be worth trying to understand what we can of it.
There is plenty of science that may happen before it can go under the rigors of full empiricism. As science become more complex, to gain an advance in understanding concepts a lot of theoretical work may need to be done to find out if it is really worth trying to experiment with. Even some things may be a bit beyond really being able to verify directly by experimentation. Bioinformatics may really be needed to set up some molecular biology experiments.
I wouldn’t say it would be way off base to say a hypothesis saying natural selection is not enough to explain all the diversity among organisms today. A dumb mutation here and there may be a bit beyond the scope for some developments in certain organisms. It may really take a coordinated set of cascading mutations. As I put that down I notice that natural selection may be a bit more than a just dumb mutations.
Perhaps there is just more to the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology than we current think. If something may happen rarely that would contradict it, chance are it may really be difficult for that to be observed and understood. If it happens just once it may be ruled out as an anomaly. We may not have an idea of how to really control for it.
So what do I feel when it comes to what should be taught? What perspective am I coming from. Well, I am a Catholic and I like my science. As far as I am concerned when it comes to science, I am uncertain of everything, but all ideas run on spectrum of doubt. The writers of the Bible do not come off as caring to make sure that everything that is written so that it could all be justified to a correct scientific account. As far as our scientific knowledge, I believe we are more in ignorance than in knowledge. So any attempt to really come up with a sure way to justify the two together would seem premature. That doesn’t mean give up, that just means realize your going to be looking at trees and may never really be able to fit it into the perspective of the forest at large.
I would say, one doesn’t need to teach ID just like evolution, I wouldn’t say that there is much there in ID compared to Evolution. If anything, it would seem to me ID would just need a paragraph in a book, or a brief mention in a lecture. The explanation of the mechanisms explained by ID and Evolution are asymmetric in length. What to me is more important is, and should be well drilled into the students (much like in A&P and chemistry structure helps dictate function) is that all ideas in science are tentative and none completely certain. The conventions of science are our best arguments today, but some of the speculation today may yield the new conventions of tomorrow. At the same time probably most of the speculation today will just be scrapped.
It would seem to me when ID and Evolution are so controversial right now, just to leave an explanation of how they relate in the hands of religious and philosophy teachers seems rather silly and lazy on the part of science experts, and fraudulent treatment of the lay person. In the end, it just ends in this being a controversy when it really doesn’t need to be. It also makes me wonder why in the world do scientist want the non scientists to frame what science is? If you want to give it a proper frame you need to say what it is and what it is not.
As far as the movie, I highly doubt I’ll ever care enough to watch it. From the commentary on it I’ve heard involved with it, I think the idea of intellectual freedom is valid. I can see them making the case of conspiracy in giving tenure. The process itself leads to people having plausible deniability, while at the same time those making the claim are going to have some proof, but not near enough to support or not support the claim. I suppose I fear the most is that the movie is going to spend a lot of time just trying to put evolution in a bad light, not with the idea itself, but by making some of the proponents look bad.