If the course is to study what ID is, what little basis in science it has, and it's history as a political movement? then sure.

If it's a course that actually treats it as a legitimate scientific theory, then it's conception as a college course would pretty much mean that education is no longer based on knowledge. 

I was reffering to the fact that ID gets labled all over and I most defently was not reffering to thier views on biology, but rather physics and the universe.

Whoa I guess i can see where you stand on ID. 

Again, if its an elective college course, then yeah I have nothing against it. They could even present it as a scientific theory if they want, just as long as they mention its criticisms. The only thing is I don't think it should be a required course.

I would classify it as perhaps a social science for now (along the same lines as theology or whatever). As ID matures as a field of study, then we'll see where it will be classified.

So should we have a class in phlogiston theory for those who deny atomic theory?

A medical course on humour imbalances and demonic possession for those who reject germ theory?

Aristotle's theory of gravity for those who reject Newton?

How about Newton's explanation for why planets stay in their orbits (God keeps them there), rather than LaPlace's mathematical explanation?

How about the Larson theory of dinosaur extinction being taught side by side with the impact theory? (Based on my college professors' door decorations, I'm pretty sure most of them were secret Larson supporters anyway).

Do we give voice to those who reject historical accuracy (holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Washington's wooden teeth)? Where, exactly, does it all end?

I know, let's have a racial superiority class for all those white supremecists! They claim they can back their beliefs up scientifically too! Though to be fair, we'll have to offer similiar courses for non-white racists as well. I'm all for equal opportunity ignorance.

Better yet, whenever someone suggests a radical new medical treatment, instead of listening to the so-called "experts", we'll present both the old and new ideas to the med students, and let THEM decide which one they'll use! What could possibly be wrong with that! 

Science is not something one "subscribes" to like a religious or political belief. It presents argument, presents evidence, and those arguments that have the best evidence are the ones that stand and are accepted. Naturalistic evolution as, essentially, described by Darwin has been debated now for 149 years. It has been through various incarnations as different ideas were tested and rejected (neo-Lammarckism, for example), but since the discovery of genetics 100 years ago (practically speaking, that is), the evidence has rather consistently mounted in favor of the neo-Darwininan view (combining most of Darwin's original ideas with population genetics, mendelian genetics and now molecular genetics). And it's not even close. Trying to put ID on anything close to equal scientific footing with evolution is like trying to say that the Chocolate Rain guy deserves equal footing with Johann Sebastian Bach. Let the ID people do their work, do the research, present their findings, find SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE, and then, and only then should it be considered appropriate material for a science class.

Horses first, THEN carts. Give us the evidence, then we'll give it to the students.

Again, if its an elective college course, then yeah I have nothing against it. They could even present it as a scientific theory if they want, just as long as they mention its criticisms. The only thing is I don't think it should be a required course.

I would classify it as perhaps a social science for now (along the same lines as theology or whatever). As ID matures as a field of study, then we'll see where it will be classified.

Um, didn't I just say that? From the beginning I implied that it wasn't on equal footing. I classify ID as a social science  for now, since it sounds more like theology, philosophy, or african american studies. Thus, I consider it to be a "soft" science, as opposed to the "hard" sciences of math and physics. I also said that it should be an elective, i.e. something that's not a Major upon itself. That means someone can't get a degree on Intelligent Designism or whatever. Surely, by reading my post, you can easily understand what I'm implying.

And yes, I believe there are different history classes about Aristotle and Newton and Demon Possession and stuff like that. It is pretty interesting stuff.  I remember learning about Lamark in my biology class, actually.

"Let the ID people do their work, do the research, present their findings, find SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE, and then, and only then should it be considered appropriate material for a science class."

Saying "FIND SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE" seems a bit harsh, as you're implying that they have NO EVIDENCE, but I agree with you wholeheartedly on that it shouldn't be treated as de facto science because the field of study is too young (the concept only started about 25 years ago, to my knowledge) and because nothing has been published yet.

As for "subscribing" to stuff, I believe there is some lattitude on what you can choose to believe, even in the sciences. Take cosmology and stuff like string theory, for example. There are dozens of different theories and camps that assert one theory over another. (there are probably hundreds of grand unified theories that have been proposed and almost all of them have been shot down for one reason or another). 

 No one is going to argue with you that 2 + 2 =5, but there are going to be different camps out there that will assert one GUT over another GUT for whatever reason.

Didn't you see my horse? I'm test driving the horse. I haven't even begun looking for carts.

Seriously read what I said again. ID proponents need to formalize an official theory for ID before its going to be taken seriously. If they think it should be taken seriously they have work to do, as it stands right now the only thing we have is people calling for it to be given credence without anyone doing the work to lend it some.

As I said previously: Put the work into the idea and earn your time at the podium like every other idea.

edit: And as MisterD points out, a classroom is not the place to hold a scientific debate.  Particularly one that requires a thorough understanding of topics as a prerequisite, that is surely putting the cart before the horse.

Throwing the idea out there as an intro elective class is a good way of getting people to work on it.

* CREATION
o Flat Earthers
o Geocentrists
o Young Earth Creationists
+ (Omphalos)
o Old Earth Creationists
+ (Gap Creationism)
+ (Day-Age Creationism)
+ (Progressive Creationism)
+ (Intelligent Design Creationism)
o Evolutionary Creationists
o Theistic Evolutionists
o Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
o Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
* EVOLUTION

Summing up these theories is a 10-week course in itself. If you get the students involved with it, then guess what? In 5 years then maybe they will turn into grad students and will publish papers on evidence that they find. You need to get the ball rolling somewhere.

Offering an elective course on ID hardly gives it any sort of legitimacy. Some schools offer a Simpsons Class; no one ever criticises that, do they? I'm not asserting that its a required course along with math and physics. I'm just saying that if people want to learn about it, let them, just as long as they understand the limitations and criticisms.

I don't understand why you're so against even giving people the chance to investigate ID. How else are they going to look into it? TV? AIG? VGChartz?

Was ID inspired by religious people?
I thought there were many non-religious scientists working on ID.
I could be mistaken. I thought many Christians didn't like ID theory/idea.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
If ID is religiously driven then getting a class at a public school would be very very difficult to no chance at all.

I think you have a somewhat different idea of education. The fact that there is a body of people who believe in something has little to no bearing on the legitimacy of the that thing.  To study that group of people and why they believe those things to better understand that group of people would be a great class, but to offer a class that proactively advocate those ideas in the face of it being a complete academic falsehood isn't what you do at a school. In fact the whole point of school is to do the opposite.

The question becomes why isn't their interest from existing experts or people who support the theory to do this work? The problem is that right now there is no science to be done because there is no theory. The theory as an idea is not formalized and it needs to be before you could even put it in a classroom much less test its validity in a meaningful way.

We aren't against people having the chance to investigate ID, we are against legitimizing it when its not even a theory yet..its a collection of unorganized ideas from a wide array of people. The point is that students are not the people who need to vet the issue, experts are.

If someone raised questions about the validity of 1+1 we wouldn't take it to the classroom and let first grade students debate it. The relationship between science and the classroom is about teaching the best of our knowledge, not teaching the comprehensive history of our knowledge. We don't spend a lot of time explaining the flat-earth theories and the reason is because they are worthless to the student in any field other than the oddities of historical science.

Really this goes to the heart of the issue, if the idea can't survive the battles of the scientific process like every other idea thats not because of the big mean bullies its because the idea has no merit. In this case the idea hasn't even been formally proposed yet. Pushing the ideology on classrooms is asking to convince the less informed and just proposing such a thing should immediately raise suspicion, because it's akin to taking the dark back alley to the land of scientific legitimacy rather than the inviting & brightly lit street paved quadruple wide, to use a metaphor.

I believe I covered the main points to your post, if you feel I've omitted something important let me know.