Turn of the Century -- Moving Forward in a Backwards Manner

Quite the headline. I hope most would disagree:

O'Reilly Calls National Academy of Sciences Fascist

The National Academy of Sciences made this objection to the inclusion of Intelligent Design into school curriculum and O'Reilly called them fascist:

''The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted," the academy said in a 1999 assessment. ''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life
or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

Why don't these people who are so concerned about giving Intelligent Design its place in education push for a curriculum that promotes critical thinking and the discussion of varying worldviews (e.g., multi-cultural ethics, world religions, philosophy)? I personally am all for that, just not in science class. If someone can give me a remotely valid argument defending the merits of ID as a science, I will consider it. As of yet, no such argument has been provided. When someone can give me evidence of God's existence and its role in creating the universe, let me know (which isn't to say such an entity doesn't exist -- we just can't prove it scientifically). Science does rely, after all, on the testing and verification provided by means of empirical evidence. Just because there are complex organisms on this planet whose origins can't be explained with evolution theory, it doesn't necessarily follow that something must have created them. One can just as easily say that a group of reptiles from planet x are responsible for the creation of humanity, or that there are giant rats in the underground, biding their time until their experiment has fully blossomed. This, it would seem, is a serious problem for folks with little sense of reason.