I named no one, so go ahead and "cherry pick" those who you think fit your argument. That's not an intellectually honest method, but, hey, all loose reasoning is fair when we're talking about "science," eh?
Let's not forget the Board chair holds a doctrate in the sciences and I have friends and acquaintances on the faculties of or who are alums with doctrates in the sciences from major universities who have no problem with the new standards... they just can't get interviewed by the "unbiased" press.
It's also interesting how foreign science journals are more honest about printing research that might chip away at evolution. Only the politically motivated US journals man the portal of scientific publications so voraciously and politically. Of course, that has no effect on "science," right? Long live the god of naturalism, eh?
(And, of course, we know that university profs as a body are diverse in their views. It's not like it's hard to get tenure if you hold different viewpoints than the liberal agenda dictates, right?)
Any specific citations? This would be more effective than an apocryphal reference. I'm all for peer-reviewed literature being used in the context of proper science education. I'm aware of none that exists supporting ID or creationism.
The foreign journals are just as atheistic, materialist, Satanic, blah! blah! blah! as those with their HQs in the US. If there was a body of "foreign" research contradicting the preponderance of opinion in US science, it would be all over these threads and we'd have been talking about it for years now.
Yes, you named no one, but I am familiar with the antievolution arguments and who makes them. And the preponderance of opinion in science is not anything you want it to be. That and not the personal attachments of state or local school board members should be reflected in the preparation of educational materials.
Citations?