You have not yet explained what chance is, without using the concept of order/design first. This suggests that order comes first, design comes first. The whole concept of something from nothing, events without following some design, is absurd. A bit like saying darkness is an existence, when even children know that darkness is not an existence, but rather the absence of light.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with it... it may turn about to be the correct way to view things. I see it as breaking down this way. If you think someday science with find proof there are almost infinite other universes then it looks like the incredible fine tunings in our universe work hand in glove with the anthropic principle. (We are here to observe... so it must be this way.) However, if you discount the conjecture there are almost infinite other universes... then the incredible fine tunings are evidence of design.
You are opposed to the teaching of art or architecture in school , or did you mean intelligent design? So no teaching of any science intrinsic in or connected to abiogenesis or evolution then. Just teach kids how not to know stuff.
They are one. This is the foreground/background problem. Not to imply that foregrounds precede backgrounds. ; )
I don't oppose teaching design, where design is known, i.e. art or architecture. I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are designers. Design nor chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc. In areas where we don't know, no need for wild guessing in order to promote atheism or theism. Teach what we know, the processes we know. Why any reasonable person would be opposed to that is beyond me. In public schools, there is no need to indoctrinate a child's mind to be atheistic or theistic ideology, to indoctrinate chance or design when it is not known if chance or programming is causal. I think children need a basis for speculation, and a good basis is the scientific methodology supported with the rigors of testing and logic. When a child has mastered the basics, then they will be in a position to reason to their own conclusions, not be a mindless person regurgitating the party line. Children learn the basic math first, they don't proceed to advance mathematical concepts until they have mastered the primary level of understanding. This flawed concept that the opinions of scientists reflect scientific truths needs to be carefully understood. The logical uncertainty of chance happenings rather than programmed happenings needs to be communicated in a manner that is not swimming in a sea of bias, but rather in a detached unbiased representation of what we know, and what we don't know. That you would oppose any of what I suggest, illustrates your bias, and probably a fear underlying that your position is in danger of being exposed as that of a faith based, rather than proof based ideology.
Didnât you mean you mean to say "I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are not designers.". As your arguments get so bizarre, it may not be a mistake. Of course design is known of in biology, cosmology, etc. Just as much as it is in architecture. And as for architects, they are completely biological in nature.... and are designers. Biological design personified. You can't not teach the science in the theory of evolution or abiogenesis , which is what you want, just because they don't show the need or necessity for an intelligent designer creator. Both those subjects are scientific and they both contain known scientific facts. You just want to exclude certain learning from school and argue against known science, not because it isn't knowledge, which of course it is, but because your personal religious preconceptions of an intelligent designer creator happen to be diminished by fact.