JS: How is macroevolution “foundational”, as you say? What about these fields requires an assumtion of macroevolution?

Setting that aside, in the final analysis Derbyshire is not arguing for evolution per se so much as he is methodological naturalism. THAT is the premise that ID denies, and wants to examine critically. And I say, what harm can come of that? Is that really too “complex” for high schoolers to understand? And given the state of how all science is taught nowadays (and especially as Derbyshire would have it taught), by the time you get to the level where you can “debate” Darwinism you’ve already bought too far into it to really debate it!

I don’t treat public-school support of ID as a fundamental requirement of the faith, but I do say that there is no valid scientific reason why ID (properly defined, as Derbyshire does NOT do in his article) cannot be discussed in science classes – except on the basis of (anti)-religious and (pro-)naturalistic prejudices.