Thanks sundiver.

Why don't you read the transcript from the UK's Parliamentary Scientific Commission's inquiry into the climategate emails before you compare AGW evidence with evolution or germ theory.

I would suggest paying attention around 4:18 when it gets meaty...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/01/parliamentary-climate-emails-inquiry

Comment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

Jones: "Why should I make the data available to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it."

Want to explain how that's good science? Surely a criticism of this in a science class would actually be good for the kids. If they can find similar things for evolution, gravity or germ theory then I'd be all for discussing that in science class too, but there isn't any that hasn't been trampled over by scientists and allowed good science to come to the fore.

Quite frankly, the idea of comparing evolution with a science that uses a computer model on raw data to produce and output and then refuses to release either the model OR the data for scrutiny is in trouble. And if peer review consists of
The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. "They've never asked," he said.
then that simply isn't real science.

Of course absolutely none of this says why ID should be mentioned at all.