[Antoninus]

The case highlighted Santorum's high-profile role in the debate over teaching evolution. ... [H]is actions - most notably, an effort in 2001 to insert a "teach the controversy" amendment into a landmark education bill - figured prominently into the case.

I have no problem with the 'teach the controversy' attitude. Too often, science is presented in schools as "this is how it is--you will accept it" rather than as "this is why we think it is--learn it and draw your own conclusions."

It also has become a political issue for Santorum as he faces a tough reelection in 2006. His leading Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., has seized upon the senator's seemingly contradictory statements on intelligent design to portray him as a "flip flopper" who puts an ideological agenda above other interests.

Ideological agenda--as in his own personal beliefs? I guess we're supposed to set those aside when we take political office? "Well, I'm personally opposed to rounding up all Democrats and shipping them off to Guantanamo, but I can't let my personal ideology get in the way."

[highball]

I have no problem with the 'teach the controversy' attitude.

The problem is that there is no "controversy." There are no "competing theories."
There's just the Theory of Evolution, with all the evidence that supports it and that is itself supported by the vast majority of scientists, and on the other hand there's people like those at the Discovery Institute and on this school board who are trying to promote their religious beliefs under the cover of science.

Once someone can articulate another scientific theory that addresses the evidence, then there will be a "controversy" to teach.