Alright, I'm back...

So I have revised my view of the Quran, as it pertains to science. In a nutshell, I don't think I would have believed in the Quran, based only on its scientific statements. Without my more personal, subjective experiences, I would probably have viewed in much more skeptically.

Therefore, I will not be bringing the Quran into this discussion in this capacity, any more. If you would like to know more details on why I've changed this opinion, you may send my a private message, as it does not relate directly to this thread.

On the other hand, I'm still not ready to give up on Intelligent Design for science class. It should not be taught as a scientific theory, or hypothesis, because it is not testable, i.e. it is not science per se.

However, the influence religion has had on the sciences cannot be denied, and it should be brought in to give some perspective on how science has evolved. The influence of religion has sometimes had a positive effect, and sometimes a negative, but the effect itself cannot be denied.

Also, many of the worlds greatest scientists were believers of one sort or another. Who could deny Isaac Newton's influence on science?

At the same time, who could deny the influence of the church, in trying to suppress certain scientific ideas which conflicted with Biblical teachings?

Science also needs to teach it's limitations. It is a great tool for discovering the physical laws of the universe, but it has very little effect on many other important things. For instance, morality cannot be proved or disproved with science, nor can religion, or relationships between people. These things have more influence on our daily lives than scientific evidence does, and while they should not be taught as science, they should be acknowledged as valid human endeavors.

Science, and scientists have a bad habit of trying to discredit everything that's not science. This is a problem. Science class should also teach exactly what a scientific theory is... a theory.

A theory is never accepted as 'the truth', it is only a working model. The theory is only valid as long as none of the evidence invalidates it. Many theories lasted much longer than that of evolution, but then later, when new evidence became available, were thrown out in favor of newer, better theories. This should be explained, especially to young impressionable children, who might take every scientific theory at face value, and never question the conclusions.