Science standards that allow for scientific challenges to Darwinism to be discussed in the classroom moved forward in Kansas today according to AP reports.

The story points out that the Kansas board is not including ID in the curriculum, which they’ve repeatedly made very clear:

The draft says the board is not advocating the teaching of “intelligent design,” which contends that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent creator, not evolution.

What’s interesting is this abysmal definition of ID. It was obviously written by the AP national desk, since AP reporter John Hanna has always had a fairly good definition of ID. Just last week he reported that:

… intelligent design, which says some features of the natural world are so well-ordered and complex that they are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Critics of teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism couldn’t resist injecting religion into the issue.

In a debate on Tuesday, board members opposed to the draft said religion had no place in the science classroom.

No one is proposing putting religion into science classes. This is a red herring, just an attempt to keep the focus off of all the glaring problems with Darwin’s theory — the one thing that dogmatic Darwin defenders want to avoid above all else.