My two cents: Inquiry is not a threat to truth.
The key word here being truth.
How could anyone oppose critical analysis? The problem, as I see it, is the tools these students would have to 'critically analyze' anything. Since these selfsame students are probably not taught the skills of 'critical thinking' they aren't capable of making any such analysis. This then just opens the door to 'its my opinion against yours' which is futile, as has been so well demonstrated here with supposed adults, let alone children.
A few other things caught my eye.
What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next - as in ape to man.
Typical mis-characterization of the theory.
Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence - though not necessarily the God of the Bible - created life in all its forms.
I like this one. This leaves the door open for anything. Why I believe that little green men on Saturn took pieces of the Rings there and shot them to earth and each piece of the ring that landed here became a new species, (the rings are really made up of DNA, don't ya know). They are more intelligent than we are and that's why we have UFOs, they are checking up on their experiment!
On the other hand.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education.
This statement bothers me, as does,
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner
These are dangerous viewpoints. If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior? Would there be any Jews left by the time anybody proves that they were mistaken?
And finally,
"There's an objective reality about science. If the Discovery Institute is really interested in convincing scientists that their reality is false, then they would be attending scientific meetings rather than selling their ideas in the marketplace of political ideas."
This gets back to the 'critical thinking' aspect of this debate. What is 'critical thinking' and has it been taught to these children as a prerequisite of the discussion? The idea here is that children would be able to 'conclude' something from 'critically analyzing' the evidence. This presupposes that children are taught logic in order to reach rational conclusions. This is the clearly not the case with a vast majority of adults, (as the comment on astrology demonstrates - Nearly every newspaper and magazine in this nation has an astrology page, despite the fact it is utterly irrational) so how could it be true for children?
So the cart is before the horse here. Children should be taught critical thinking skills before they are given subjects to critically analyze.
What this really brings into question is whether we should actually have public education sponsored by the government. Why should I pay taxes to educate the general populace when they aren't being educated, but taught opinions?