Intelligent Design in Peer-Reviewed Publications Despite the Fits of Dogmatic Darwinists

Despite outright denial and dogmatic censoring of legitimate scientific qualms with Darwinism, works supporting the theory of Intelligent Design have in fact been published in many respected, peer-reviewed publications. As to the supposed concessions on this point Behe made in court, examine the manuscript for yourself, or read Dembski's quotes. How did the judge make up his mind? By cutting and pasting an error-filled document from the ACLU, a practice frowned upon by courts. What was that trial about, anyway? Only whether teachers should read the following memo encouraging students to think critically:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is
discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's
view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

There is no factual error in the memo, it takes a couple seconds to read, and it promotes clear, rational thinking. Although I think it makes little difference whether students hear such a memo or not, I find it hilarious that hysterical characters in the tradition of Richard Dawkins become irately zealous to maintain their lame critiques of Intelligent Design. The irony, I suppose, is that the ruling may have actually opened more doors for the ID movement.