There is currently a fierce but lop-sided debate in Hong Kong regarding the teaching of alternate theories to evolution and natural selection, and more specifically, Intelligent Design.
The dominant position, as seen from the media, is that evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. By evolution, it is meant (with gross simplification): nothing -> simple elements -> inorganic compounds -> organic matter -> simple life forms -> complex life forms -> animals -> humans. According to this view, theories such as Intelligent Design are simply religious dogma and must be banned from any discussions of science, even in a university.
As far I can understand, Intelligent Design argues that certain features of the universe and living things are so complex that it is unlikely to be produced by undirected processes such as natural selection, but more likely to be produced by an intelligent cause. To me, this argument is worthy of being investigated in science. It may be wrong, but let us see the arguments and the evidences before we decide. That is the spirit of science.
Researchers in Intelligent Design should submit their arguments and evidences to reputable conferences and journals just like other scientific researchers. Let their peers review and debate the merit of their work.
Whether Intelligent Design is science is not the decision of reporters, talk show hosts, government officials, and even university administrators. It should be the domain of fellow scientists.
Banning the discussion of such theories from scientific studies is dogmatic.