AP reporter John Miller broke the story of University of Idaho President Timothy White’s edict banning “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula” as inappropriate for the university. (see our original post here) Nowhere does the statement say what a differing view on evolution might be. And differing from what exactly? Darwinism? Intelligent design? Structuralism? Self-organization? What is appropriate for UI science classes? Can a professor present research critical of any of these theories or only critical of some? What about evidence that supports these theories can that be discussed with students?

In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy.

“I hope that the media will critically analyze Forrest’s testimony and get our response to her allegations,” said John West. “I would warn them to take what she says not with just a grain of salt, but with a shaker-full.” Today, Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that it is her opinion that intelligent design and creationism are essentially one in the same.

Michael Balter is a Paris-based correspondent for the AAAS and the journal Science. In an opinion piece titled “Let ‘intelligent design’ and science rumble” in last Sunday’s LA Times, Balter argued that public acceptance of evolution was suffering because of the Darwinian monopoly on public education.