I wholeheartedly agree.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, actually is a scientific approach, like it or not.
I don't like it, I don't have to like it, and the "or not" ultimatum is an empty defense. ID is nothing more than Creationism all dressed up in a science dress that doesn't fit and that...
".... tries to get religion in the back door."
The problem with you ID'rs is that you are duplicitous.
I'm not sure if I'm an IDer, even. But I find the work of its more intelligent proponents interesting and reasonably plausible. I'd like to see more discussion.
My objection to Darwinism in the schools is mainly that Darwinists seem to want a complete and hermetically sealed monopoly on public school science. No competition allowed. No discussion allowed. No questions allowed.
I am not sure whether advocacy of religion in public schools would be a good idea, but a fair and free discussion of religion is certainly something children should be exposed to. They should know about the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving and the revival movements of the nineteenth century. They should know something about the Bible as they should know something about Aristotle, Plato, and Greek tragedy, and other major literary and philosophical works.
No single book has been more influential on our history, culture, and civilization than the Bible. Yet it is not allowed into our schools.
What was regretable is that it was always a legal battle, rather than an intellectual discussion, what should be taught in science courses. I have no problems with teaching Darwinism as long as it has any remaining credibility, but I refuse to agree that it should have a total monopoly imposed on our schools by unelected judges and Darwinist True Believers, as if it were written in stone forever.