They are idiots

Idiots are people who are easily taken-in by innanity. Many people in general are idiots as such. There is probably a different word for people who reject science for political purposes.

There is this wonderful loophole in science classrooms. Things must be testable. You must be able to experiment on hypotheses and theories, and they are/can be based on the experiments.

Why is ID/creation rejected in the classroom? Is it because you mention "God" and suddenly it's a religion and that cannot be allowed in the classroom? Good heavens, no. If God could be experimented on, theorized about, and demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt does the same things every time, He/She/It/Whatever supreme being you can get to expose itself would be accepted. (amendment: SHOULD be. Would be might be a different story) If religion could be demonstrated to work a certain way every time and always connect with the almighty, it should be considered a scientific endeavor. So, again I ask, WHY is ID/creation rejected? Back to the loophole.

"Creation" is something that purportedly happened once (and the IDer, someone who is), but cannot be duplicated in experiments. Insisting that something cannot be testable is no reason to say it did not happen. It's like trying to test who shot Abraham Lincoln. It's history. There are other ways at getting evidence for historical issues, and yes, there are scientific ways of doing so. Pointing out that certain evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that "evolution did it" merely means that said conclusion wasn't scientific. It doesn't mean that I am suddenly playing the "God wildcard" if I question (and maybe even experiment) whether something could have been accomplished by natural processes.

I think at best, ID proponents have not yet found a scientific way to describe the tenets of ID. If they have, yes, the implications are that there is a god and we are accountable to it. If they have and they are being silenced, as Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" is saying, then indeed, the evolutionary community really is acting shamefully in censoring science, and not religion. IF.

Now, there are some experiments that demonstrate that a flood could have
1) laid down the many layers of rock that we see in places like the grand canyon,
2) carved through those layers of rock (when they were still soft), again, in places like the grand canyon.

Now, that's not saying it did, but you cannot demonstrate millions of years in experiments. You can demonstrate 9 hours of carving a small canyon (as happened about near Mount St. Helens about two years after it blew its top), or 15 minutes in a sufficiently large laboratory experiment. "Millions of years" is an educated guess at best, and really should be considered to be no better off than ID's inability to experimentally demonstrate its tenets. Don't give me Carbon 14 information. C-14 dating is known to be inaccurate beyond a few thousand years, and useless into tens of thousands.