I was trying to figure out why the discussions about 'what is a theory' and 'ID isn't science' aren't making any inroads in resisting the move to include these non-scientific themes in biology and science classes in the US.
I knew deep down there was something wrong with the discussion being about 'ID' or 'alternative theories'. And I was trying to figure out how to change the argument to have it instantly make sense to people. When someone presents the argument as, "we just want alternative theories taught", it has a certain amount of credibility. Who wouldn't want alternative theories taught when there are alternative theories with any credibility.
But with the argument discussed in terms of alternative theories, evolution advocates seem to stumble. We try to explain there is no evidence. We try to explain ID is not a valid theory. We try to explain what a theory is. All of these concepts require the non scientific thinker to make judgments about whether evidence they are unfamiliar with is credible. It is too complex for instant recognition about what the problem with teaching ID really is.
We need to define the argument in science terms, but in this case 'marketing science terms', not the usual terms one thinks of as science. We need to define the argument on our terms. In other words, take the argument away from those who are manipulating it with the motivation of making science fit the Bible. Let's discuss the argument on our terms.
So how does one do that. It finally came to me as I was posting to yet another thread on what's wrong with teaching ID. The problem is not with teaching alternative theories to evolution. If there are any, bring them on.
The real problem is irreducible complexity has been disproved by overwhelming genetic evidence. For that matter, macro evolution only has been disproved by overwhelming evidence. Whenever someone says, "teach ID", we should answer, "we would but it's based completely on irreducible complexity and that has been disproved".