Keeping IDism out of public school classrooms is not about “freedom of speech”. It’s about “academic integrity”.
Link them to this (2013) from Ball State University President Jo-Ann Gora:
“Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom—it is an issue of academic integrity” https://www.chronicle.com/article/ball-state-u-bars-teaching-of-intelligent-design-as-science/
“Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.” - Jo-Ann Gora https://www.christianpost.com/news/ball-state-university-denounces-intelligent-design-keeps-professor-accused-of-id-bias.html
Then link them to John G. West’s response to Gora’s generous offer, as Senior Fellow and Associate Director of the Centre of Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute. The guy just about cracked his skull with “Christian-IDist rage” because Gora made a fair and credible offer, but one that he had to refuse based on ideology, given the DI’s insistence that “ID theory” is “strictly scientific”. https://evolutionnews.org/2013/08/ball_state_pres/
Upset IDists: https://evolutionnews.org/2013/09/why_censo: ship_/
You won’t likely need anything more than this story to counter the DI’s double-talking & pretense to “scientificity” for ID theory.
Make them an offer: be welcome to teach ID theory in a philosophy or humanities classroom, but not in a natural science classroom. See what they say. If they agree, follow that where it leads because it would destroy the IDM. They’d have to openly admit then that ID theory isn’t “strictly scientific”, but rather “philosophical” or “ideological”, while ID theory’s supposed “scientificity” is an axiomatic requirement of the DI. If they disagree, then it’s really not an issue of “academic freedom,” right? It’s instead really about the DI’s ideology and their brazen intent without evidence of the supposed scientifically verifiable “instantiation” of “ID” to change the “groundrules” of natural science.
Sadly, IDists display their lack of integrity on a continual and regular basis when they flat out refuse to discuss the following: “design theory” (non-IDist), “design thinking”, “design history” and “design studies”. Why? Because these are serious scholarly contributions, not “weaponized theistic science apologetics”, like ID theory is.
I asked Michael Behe in a 1-on-1 conversation at the end of 2019 if he knew about any “design theory” other than “ID theory”, and he said no. Then backed that up with “I’m a simple biochemist” to escape. Yeah, a simple biochemist who has made his living by, and is really only known for taking money from the DI to promote an ideology: IDism.
Why give “equal time” to an ideology that fakes “scientificity” for apologetics purposes? In private schools, nothing’s stopping it. But not in public schools or universities. Hopefully that helps, as this argument is quite easy to respond to, since the DI has already copped out.