Excellent post. I agree- if their focus is on examination and discussion of evolutionary theory, and possible criticism thereof, then I don’t see a problem.

Like you, I see this eventually being an attempt to interject ID into science classrooms.

I believe in creation, but it doesn’t belong in the discipline of science.

That way, when my kids are looking for jobs in scientific fields, they won’t have to face competition from American kids, so they will have a better chance of getting a high level job, which means they will be richer, which means I will be put in a more expensive rest home with more attractive nurses! Wooo! Go Creationists!

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Definition of skepticism according to Miriam-Webster: “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism

Definition of incredulous according to Miram-Webster: “unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incredulous

So the question in my mind is whether the focus is on doubt or incredulity. Going with the second sentence of the statement leads one to think the focus is on doubt and that seems perfectly reasonable. Going by the political connections of the signers its seems as if the focus is on incredulity, with the basis of incredulity being religious belief. That would be simply unscientific.

It makes the rest of look smarter.

A touch of Louisiana, where ID has worked its way into the curriculum – Courtesy Discovery Institute.

Now we must search for members of the same Committee that don’t believe in Global Warming Hysteria.