I recently read this article in the Kansas City Star.
From the article:
Hays school district superintendent Fred Kaufman said it was important to get the matter resolved so it doesn’t keep coming up.Hmmm...tell us, Mr. Kaufman, whose religious preferences would intelligent design be supporting? And, what kind of "religious" teachings would be taught in the science class if ID were mentioned?
“I guess if it were up to me, I would leave that in the hands of the science teachers and the experts in science,” he said in a phone interview. “It would behoove us all to remember that other people have opinions, and recognize them as honorable and worthwhile and not put them down, but to leave the teaching of science to science teachers.
“If we are going to start teaching religious preferences, we are going to have a real tangle trying to decide whose to teach.[my emphasis]”
Mr. Kaufman's comment shows a complete lack of understanding about what ID actually is. But even worse, he seems to infer that our present science standards include teaching intelligent design. They don't.
If Mr. Kaufman is interested in learning more about ID and why it is not a "religious preference", he should listen to Michael Behe's (author of Darwin's Black Box) recent KU lecture, and my review covering it.
And, if he doesn't think that evolution supports faith beliefs (equivalent to religious beliefs), perhaps he would benefit from reading this, this, or this.
Consider a quote from H.J. Lipson, Prof. of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, who wrote in 1984:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it."