[scripter]

2) The caveat in bold italics ("The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution") was added after the "bibliography" had been submitted to the Ohioans and gathered criticism for the creationist quote-mine that it is.

Saw this after I posted - it doesn't seem to change my question in my last post, though.

[VadeRetro]

Follow link, read text:

Although the publications listed in the Bibliography are valuable contributions to the scientific literature, the Bibliography itself is misleading. The staff of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) analyzed the Bibliography with the assistance of many of the authors of the publications listed in it, finding (1) that the Discovery Institute misrepresents the significance of the publications in the Bibliography, (2) that the Discovery Institute's descriptions of the publications in the Bibliography are frequently inaccurate and tendentious, and (3) that the Discovery Institute fails to present any principled basis for the selection of the publications or any pedagogical rationale for their use in the classroom. NCSE concludes that the only purpose of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography is to mislead members of the Board and of the public about the status of evolution.

Numbered charges are detailed and substantiated separately. Science classes have to give the kids enough background to resist snake-oil salesmen like Meyer as early in their education as possible. Meyer can lurk in a shabby overcoat outside, off of school property, and pass out pamphlets.