Equal Time-again.... This piece from NRO is titled Inherited Debate. An interesting excerpt:

Those in the scientific mainstream say there is no genuine dispute over evolution — at least not within scientific circles. They cite such phenomena as antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof that species change in response to environmental stressors, with nature weeding out the weak and favoring the strong. They hold that students in public schools should be taught evolution — and evolution only - and that religious views on such matters should be restricted to the home and the church. But the public disagrees. According to a June poll conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 82 percent of Ohioans said they believed teachings on the origins of life should not be restricted to evolution. The board received 20,000 letters urging that multiple theories be taught and, in a packed room on the day of the vote, the overwhelming majority of public speakers urged the board to be open to theories that challenge Darwinian evolution. Ohio's numbers mirror the national consensus. A recent Zogby poll showed that 71 percent of Americans supported the proposition that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Nationally, 160 scientists recently signed a statement calling for "careful examination" of Darwin's theory.

Two facts that one can confirm rather easily: 1 - In the scientific mainstream, evolution is simply accepted as the only viable paradigm 2 - In the general public, skepticism of evolution is accepted as a valid and alternative position 50% of Americans regularly reject evolution, either theistic or naturalistic, in any form, while only 10-15% accept naturalistic evolution. The balance is made up of "theistic evolutionists," who believe that evolution is simply the mode that expresses god's creative energies. On the other hand, scientists, and biologists in particular, simply have no use for the Intelligent Design paradigm, which is the least bizarre of the anti-evolutionary theories (most of the 50% that reject evolution in the regular Gallup surveys will also agree with the statement that the earth is 10,000 years old, beyond the lunacy of the ID proponents). As schools are publicly funded, local control is something that obliviously matters. In certain regions of the country the populace, pitchforks and all, are obviously rather hostile to the idea that humans are descended from other primates. And yet scientists, and much of the educational and political establishment, tend to overrule public wishes and impose their own theories in the classroom. Though I tend to agree with the evolutionists, I have to admit that I don't see much of a point in explaining the intricacies of natural selection and genetic drift to the 50% that reject evolution and almost certainly tend to correlate with the left half of the bell curve. Some people are uneducable in my opinion, and will always adhere to magical thinking. These are the types that need vocational schools, not A.P. Biology. I'm personally skeptical of the of publicly funded schools in any case, as local property taxes make the idea of their quality being independent of personal means somewhat of a joke. Creationism and Intelligent Design will never invade the schools of Fairfax county or Berkeley High School. Do we really care if future mechanics aren't taught the details of evolutionary science in the hills of West Virginia? That being said, though I think it is fair that Intelligent Design proponents contest the political forum, they need to stop lying and pretending like they have any traction in the scientific arena. What infuriates defenders of evolutionary theory isn't that Intelligent Design proponents are so good at tearing down evolution, it's that they misrepresent the scientific consensus to the general public. They seem to be rather willing to deceive in the name of a Righteous Cause.