This is where this approach heads. Trust me: I live in an area where creationism, now called "Intelligent Design" by the same people who championed creationism, is alive and well. Our Middle School's biology textbooks were even rubberstamped: "Evolution is not a fact, but a theory etc. etc." I made a notation in the area where one records the condition of the book: "Defaced on title page and on page 112." And put a sticker over them.

I know the ID strategy. It goes this way:

1. Make claims degrading the factual and truthful nature of evolution by confusing the terms "theory" and "guess" in the public mind, sadly easy to do.

2. Appeal for "fairness" and "equal time" in the science classroom, asserting that ID is as valid a theory as evolution because we don't have video of the first airbreather climbing out of the water and so forth. Downplay the fact that ID's assertions very closely resemble a literal interpretation of Genesis rather than any creation story from, say, Gujarat or Tonga.

3. Introduce ID into the classroom under the pretext of examining all scientific theories in order to improve the critical skills of the students. This in spite of the fact that a) ID is not scientific, but faith based, and so belongs in a Religious Studies class; and b) the students in question are not 17-year-old Advanced Biology students with years of grounding in scientific method, but 12-year-old Life Sciences students whose friends can convince them that people have three kidneys because they read it on the internet (true example; corrected with moderate sarcasm at a pool party). Insist on it being taught as a matter of policy even though teachers object on academic grounds.

4. In a masterpiece of misdirection and circular reasoning after its introduction to the classroom, claim that ID is just as scientific as evolution because "they teach it in science classes, so it must be a valid viewpoint".

5. Put political pressure on school administrators and school board directors for curriculum revision that not only encourages, but requires a student debate on the subject, after which the students -- those same 12-year-olds, some of whose parents are fervent creationists -- vote on which approach is more valid. Scientific truth is thus determined by popular acclaim, in much the same way as average Europeans during the Dark Ages determined the Earth was flat and cats were familiars of the Devil.

Seriously, Daniel, the only way to keep this from escalating is to insist -- insist -- that the content of science classes be rigorously scientific until the students reach advanced, elective science courses. In this way, they will have the tools to evaluate scientific theories on their merits, not on how the theories make them feel or what their friends say.

I know that many, many scientists and science enthusiasts are also devout adherents to an assortment of religions, as well as those who are not religious but believe in God. They know where the dividing line is between faith and science, and so feel no discomfort or conflict in maintaining their professional skepticism re: physical evidence and their personal beliefs re: the ineffable side by side. I don't consider people who believe in a Creator to be de facto Intelligent Design activists; the aim of the latter is not simply to reconcile religion and science, but for religion to overrule science.

I'm all for teaching religious studies in public schools. Children and teens need comparative religion, philosophy, and maybe even ethics courses to put our small world into perspective. But that approach, which separate the creation story and the science classroom, will never fly with Intelligent Design believers, because their objective is not broad knowledge, or even informed belief. It is enforced ignorance of anything other than their own literalist beliefs, which in their view are absolutely and uniquely true and correct. They want no cross-contamination from science or anything else. It threatens their religion. They will forever degrade, discredit and villify any way of thinking that they perceive to be a threat.