Why ID should be taught
Jonah Avriel Cohan also weighs in inThe American Thinker on why he thinks ID should be taught, if not in science classes then in philosophy classes, and busts some prevailing myths about ID. Here's a good excerpt which talks about the concept of the "Anthropic Principle".
In 1930, F.R. Tennant wrote a magnificent book called Philosophical Theology, wherein he developed something called “The Anthropic Principle.” This principle suggested that the cosmos was fashioned for the development of intelligent life. Had there been only a slight alteration in the values of, say, the charge of the electron or the degree of nuclear force in the universe then intelligent life, or any life at all for that matter, would most likely not have developed. Tennant said it was possible to imagine a frenzied world wherein no rules held. But the actual universe was not chaotic and was evidently regulated in such a way that the evolutionary process lead to an environment in which intelligent life – think Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Florence Nightingale – could exist. Such intellect, he thought, suggested evidence of a divine plan. Of course, Tennant’s conclusion might well have been mistaken, but he was right to point out that there was nothing obviously incompatible between the theory of evolution and the notion that a deity designed the evolutionary process itself.
Accordingly, the current idea that the “science” of evolution is logically at odds with the “faith” of intelligent design may rest on a false disjunction.