[Torie]

I don't think a candiate making an issue against a politician who believes that God had a hand in designing evolution will gain much traction. I don't think a politician suggesting that schools admit what we don't know, as well as what we know, per the scientific method, will bite the dust in most places either in America. I don't think this issue has much political traction at all frankly. It is of interest intellectually, but not politically. I think the author is engaging in wishful thinking about the way he wishes the American public square were, but isn't.

Just the opinion of a near Atheist who doubts that anyone was around to design anything. But that is beside the point. Most Americans profess a belief in God in any event.

[curiosity]

I don't think a candiate making an issue against a politician who believes that God had a hand in designing evolution will gain much traction.

That's not what the intelligent design movement is about. It's asserting that certain lifeforms are just too complex to have evolved via natural selection. That's a much stronger statement, and it is scientifically wrong. The vast majority of people advocating this stuff are anti-science crackpots.

I don't think a politician suggesting that schools admit what we don't know, as well as what we know, per the scientific method, will bite the dust in most places either in America.

That's not what they're doing. They are trying to sneak scientifically innacuarte criticisms of the theory of evolution into biology classes, and trying to replace that theory with an unscientific alternative.