I'm glad to see you consider the New York Times to be a reputable source on this or any other topic.
Like you, they are desperate not to lose Darwin's exclusive monopoly on our school children.
Funny that those who are interested in ID are perfectly happy to have Darwin taught in the schools, but Darwinists simply can't brook any competition.
What's next? Are we going to teach young earth creationism in schools as well?
That's because evolution is based upon actual science and belongs in science classrooms.
Funny that those who are interested in ID are perfectly happy to have Darwin taught in the schools, but Darwinists simply can't brook any competition.
No, the ID crowd and other anti-science groups have been working hard to eliminate evolution and by extension, any other science facet that might threaten their narrow minded fanatic version of the Bible from science classrooms - hence the court battles against science in Kansas and Ohio.
BTW - there is no such thing as a Darwinist. That's more inaccurate than calling someone who recognizes that jets fly a "Bernoulli-ist" or that a multistage rocket was capable of reaching the moon a "von-Braunist."
There are those who are educated in science and those whose ignorant fear propels them against it.
Teaching evolution is "teaching Darwin" as much as genetics is "teaching Mendel" or the theory of relativity is "teaching Einstein."
Now, I would agree that the HISTORY of the modern evolutionary principles start with Charles Darwin, but that doesn't mean evolution is studying darwinism. Darwin didn't claim to be a prophet or a leader or anything for SCIENCE to study. He was just a man who happened to have a rational idea in a superstitous time... and now his principles are the basis of modern biology.
ID doesn't just seek to combat that evil evolution theory, my mind was made up about the validity of the ID argument almost a year ago when I saw an interview with the head of the Center for ID or some crazy orginization. He stated that The Grand Canyon was not formed by years of river erosion, erosion which is something that is even a common problem for any farmer, no he stated that he believed that the Grand Canyon was formed by a massive mother-of-all lightning storms apparently brought by God. Give me a break! Can you take that theory serious even for one nanosecond? Religion in itself is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot scientifically test for a deity or deities. If that makes science a bigotry then so be it. If it wasn't for science we'd all still be dying in our 30's and not living to 70+. The ID argument is an attempt to attack ALL science not just the theory of evolution, don't let anyone try to fool you. Just like the MSM hates our military & police the the ID'ers hate common sense.
ID isn't science, it is a wish.
ID'ers have ZERO scientific credibility and are a laughingstock. Rule of the Sheeple indeed.