If the ACLU wasn't looking to use the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling people their ideals and agenda, then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit in the first place.
Sorry, mom. You've got it backwards.
The Thomas More Law Center was the one looking to force its ideology.
They shopped around, looking for a school board willing to implement a curriculum guaranteed to provoke a court challenge. Then, when they got what they wanted, they specifically asked the judge to rule on their ideology, not dreaming that a conservative judge would put politics aside and actually follow the law.
Your beef oughtn't be with the ACLU (strange as that sounds!). Like the broken clock, they were right on this one.
Your beef really ought to be with the ones "looking to use the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling people their ideals and agenda" - the Thomas More Law Center.
It stated: Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwins Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of the life will not be taught. The policy also required school administrators to read to students a statement mentioning problems with Darwin's theory and refers students to school library textbooks discussing the theory of intelligent design.
So what's so un-Constitutional about that statement? Are kids not to be taught that there are problems with TOE or are they to be taught that there are none? Are schools teaching kids to blindly accept anything that comes down the pike without thinking for themselves? Teaching of creation along with evolution doesn't seem to have hurt the education of all the kids in private Christian schools or all the homeschoolers who teach it.