I wonder if those on the Kansas Board and elsewhere who want to accompany evolution with a discussion of the creator hypothesis in science classes realize the implications. They surely don't expect teachers to present just the case against evolution while ignoring the case against the alternatives. Do they really want to open science classes to presentations of the evidence for and against a creator and other supernatural beliefs?
Why stop at evolution and creation? Why not "teach the controversy" over the existence of any nonmaterial element in the universe, including God? Presentations could discuss the experiments that have so far failed to provide any significant evidence for the efficacy or prayer or a dual nature of mind and matter.
Why should religion be exempt from science classes, at least in those areas where it makes statements about the nature of the universe and life on this planet that have empirical consequences? If this is what the majority of people want, then scientists and science teachers should give it to them. They could compare, for example, the Genesis story of creation with that of modern cosmology and see which one is in better accord with observations.
Yes, I liked those passages you quoted, too. Stenger is providing those Kansas IDists the rope they need to hang themselves...