It might be worth understanding the Intelligent Design side of the debate before you swallow whole Rennie's comments.

In addition, you need not be so concerned at the terrible state of affairs in the U.S. which might actually allow students and teachers to discuss ideas that are incompatible with evolutionism. No, despite Rennie's exasperation that not everyone shares his views, there is little opportunity for religious discussion to enter into the classroom in the United States.

You may be aware that in Aguillard v. Edwards in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court (with dissenting opinions) even went so far as to hold that traditional treatment of creation in the public school classroom is unconstitutional. Additionally, cases in state and federal courts have subsequently and regularly upheld disciplinary action against teachers who present creation as a an alternative theory to evolutionism. In my review of standard biology texts, I fail to find any reference to creation, except in dismissal; yet some form of Darwinian evolutionism is universally presented.

Thus, your and Rennie's fears about discussions of creation permeating our classrooms are completely unfounded in the present state of affairs.

However, this is really tangential to the Intellegent Design position, which does not seek to turn science courses into religion courses, but simply to allow students the opportunity to (i) hear and understand weaknesses in evolutionary theory; and (ii) be exposed to alternative theories that might exist based on the evidence and an impartial scientific method.

Quote from Randal Huey:

EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF to those who fervently believe in it as fact.

Suggest any with open minds read the works of Gerald Schroeder and check the website of the same and links to BBC dvd.

Mathematically inclined will be especially interested.

jim

Just checking to see if any relation are out here
http://swarovski.searchcar.org/daniel_swarovski/