"Last time I checked it was evolutionists who prefer to use the law to choke out any mention of intelligent design in association with organized matter that performs specific functions."
Really? I've never met a scientist who wouldn't discuss new evidence although there may be some. The problem they universally have, though, is with teaching things not supported by evidence and in particular being told to teach things not supported by evidence.
Who are the people who prefer to use US law to prohibit the suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions might best be attributed to intelligent design?