[bigLusr]

On January 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.

And THIS is what upsets you? The teacher isn't even going to explain what ID is... much less teach it. S/he'll just offer students the opportunity to learn something outside of the classroom. I'm sorry. I can't see a mere twenty-second suggestion of optional outside-of-class not-for-credit work could possibly infringe on someone's freedom of religion.

[RadioAstronomer]

And THIS is what upsets you? The teacher isn't even going to explain what ID is... much less teach it. S/he'll just offer students the opportunity to learn something outside of the classroom. I'm sorry. I can't see a mere twenty-second suggestion of optional outside-of-class not-for-credit work could possibly infringe on someone's freedom of religion.

What this does is raise ID to the level of a theory in the minds of those students. ID should not be pushed as an alternative in science class.

[stremba]

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view

No, what bothers me is that nonsense like this is what we're teaching students. If you read "On the Origin of Species," Darwin's view of the origin of life is very similar to creationists' viewpoint. Where he differs is in the origin of life more complex than multicellular creatures, not the origin of life.

[Dimensio]

I suppose that science teachers should also be able to make a similar mention of astrology.