Denis Hancock of the Reformed-Angler sent me a link to an article, Belief in the Balance, in the Columbia Missouri Tribune. I thought the article made some helpful distinctions. I especially like this quote:
"It's not that science refutes religion," Miller said. "It's that science looks for natural answers to questions, and if you say, 'Well, we have a tailbone just because our designer put it there,' then you can't make any predictions based on that. You can't explain it. And there's no way to test for that designer."
The ability to test a theory is elemental to science and there is no real way to test for an intelligent designer. But science generated knowledge is limited, precisely because science is limited to empirical observation only. There are other types of knowledge that point to an Intelligent designer but I question whether the science class is the place to teach that knowledge.