This is not accurate. There are hundreds of reported cases of speciation by unintentional human accident--building dams being a prime example. There are also hundreds of observations of speciation in the wilds.
I am flabberghasted that the introduction of the mere idea of intelligent design is somehow a violation of the constitution.
the "mere idea" is not a violation of the constitution. There won't be significant objections if you want to teach it in history or sociology class. Stapling the idea onto a science textbooks, where it will amount to advocacy, against the advice of scientists, and for judicially demonstrated religious reasons, is. Contrary to your expressed opinion here, motivation does matter in the law, as it should.
And explaining in history class what some people believe, and what the effects of that belief have been, does not amount to advocacy. Pasting the same theories into science books, is attempting to suggest that there may be scientifically objective underpinnings of those beliefs, and that IS advocacy and it does violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Where in the constitution is the so called principle of "separation of church and state specfically enunciated."
The 6th Circuit just stated that there is no such thing as a constitutional "separation of church and state". Will we give as much deference to the opinion of the 6th Circuit as you give to this judge?
I assume you are an attorney?
Do you have an example at hand?