Over the years, I have seen many critics engage in a form of historical revisionism than envisions a purely secular past that has just recently been threatened by an influx of relgious ideology and desire for a theocracy. But Scott just admitted that much of the classroom controversy is traced back to President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002. In other words, bureacrats have tried to centralize and standardize a diverse educational system and are predictable stepping on the toes of the people who pay for all this. Scott helps to confirm that the ID classroom debate is a REACTION, rather than a proactive attempt to install a theocracy.

"I've linked to the article."

It's okay to just come right out and say it: "macht, you're stupid."

And, along those lines, what do you mean by "Scott makes a very interesting point that undercuts some of the anti-ID rhetoric I have heard over the years."

I've linked to the article. Yes, it focuses primarily on evolution and adds in the stem cell debate for balance. Apparently, the rest of science education is okay.

As for the NCSE, there is a prominant sidebar article about Eugenie Scott. Scott makes a very interesting point that undercuts some of the anti-ID rhetoric I have heard over the years.

"Furthermore, such complaining is typically associated with tunnel vision."

Is this one of those articles that equates "science" with "evolution?" (Kind of like the NCSE does?) Or is actually talking about ALL science education?