Let me first state that my understanding of what is entailed by your Democratic Party is incomplete, but from that perspective (which assumes your Democrats are generally analogous to our Labour Party), it is the Democrats whom I would expect to more strongly favour the ID 'teach the controversy' line, as a form of ideological interference with science (science as a high order form of rational empiricism, which provides the ultimate refuations of leftist irrational ideology). Here (Britain) it is the Labour Party which ceaselessly toils to push relativism into the educational curricula, most apparently in disciplines such as History but more recently into other areas. ID is clearly a distinctly minority view, which appears to have presented nothing with which scientists can engage; the notion of demanding equal time, as it were, for it at introductory level in your secondary schools seems to me precisely the same political agenda as that pursued by those who have expunged British imperial history (warts and all) from our school curricula in favour of 'culture studies.'
It may be of interest to note that over here, the drive for ID, though small, chiefly originates from parts of the Muslim population, and our current socialist government is seeking to facilitate an expansion of Islamic schools which can teach Darwin-free biology.
You clearly do have a culture war roaring away over there. We have a smaller one over here; the players are slightly different, but the battle lines are looking similar.
I agree. When the evidence and clear reasoning are both against one's position, then all that remains is a campaign of obfuscation, deconstruction, "critical analysis," and the whole arsenal of post-modernism. That's all that ID has, and for most of their followers that connection hasn't been realized. Here I speak of those who regard themselves as conservatives (and who therefore vote Republican, probably for the first time, as their ancestors were the "Solid South" which voted democrat since the "compromise of 1877").
Background quickies:
Compromise of 1877.
Solid South.
At the time of the Scopes trial, the Dhims were the ones supporting creationism, and the GOP was on the side of the pointy-headed Yankee professors.
If it weren't for the fact that ID gets all of its support from religious literalists (either Biblical or Koranic), I too would expect the Dhims to support "teaching the "controversy".
They are the ones pushing all sorts of relativism, Ebonics, Afrocentric history, affirmative action in general, and also watered-down curricula and low standards for teachers.
ID is all about affirmative action, but the people pushing it aren't one of the Dhims' mascot groups.
It may be of interest to note that over here, the drive for ID, though small, chiefly originates from parts of the Muslim population, and our current socialist government is seeking to facilitate an expansion of Islamic schools which can teach Darwin-free biology.
The IDers in Kansas had a Muslim testify. See Islam OnLine (North American Affairs) for a non-Christian perspective on Kansas.
Excerpt:
The theory of Evolution has important ramifications in the lives of lay believers as well as the believing intellectuals. To teach young students in the school about it merely as one of the theories would be one thing, but to teach it as a scientifically proven fact, as it is generally done, would be utterly preposterous.
[snip]
The theory of evolution cuts the vertical relationship between man and God and possibility of creation. It horizontalizes the process of creation in terms of linearity of time, which cannot be adequately verified.
It tries to base its validity on Paleontology, which in fact is this theory's worst enemy as it does not lend reliable data for the inter-species hiatus.
Scientific proofs besides, there are important social and ethical ramifications of this theory. If biological progress is slowly incremental overtime and the humans gradually evolve towards their perfect state, then it is logical to assume that their moment of ultimate perfection resides in the future.
[snip]
And if the futuristic improved version of us humans will be free of the present human defects such as lying, cheating, greed and violence, then shouldn't we logically accept lower moral standards because we are not so smart after all? at least not yet!
This would also mean that Moses, Christ and Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Them) were not quite as perfect as some of us are already or will be at some point in the future.
Thus, the world-view they propagated must also be a faulty and outmoded one...