But those rascally intelligent design advocates are far, far more clever than Darwinists can imagine. They find all kinds of ways to sneak intelligent design into the science classroom. Take this article from last Sunday's Boston Globe for example. Teacher David Campbell seems to be your typical Darwinian advocate. It is obvious, however, that he is a stealth intelligent design advocate; perhaps even a creationist.
Campbell uses the example of Mickey Mouse to help his students understand evolution:
Campbell smiled. "Mickey evolved," he said. "And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is 'selection.' "
What more proof do we need that Campbell is actually a creationist, probably the head of a conspiracy to impose a fundamentalist Christian theocracy? Mickey Mouse is a pure example of intelligent design. The pen that drew him didn't move by itself; it moved in accord with a design of Mickey created by Walt Disney. Furthermore, any change Mickey underwent isn't any sort of random selection; it is change in light of the higher purpose for which Mickey exists: Making Walt Disney money. Aristotle himself could not have come up with a more teleological example.
Campbell goes on to give the substance of what Darwinists actually believe, but he provides no reason to believe it:
Later, he would get to the touchier part, about how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction. And how a struggle for existence among naturally varying individuals has helped to generate every species, living and extinct, on the planet.
So the substance of Darwinism is but a "touchy" afterthought to the only evidence he cites - an example of intelligent design. Perhaps Darwinism is so "touchy" because even high school sophomores might wonder why an allegedly purely naturalistic theory of origins must resort to examples of intelligent design to support it. The legal cases were supposed to have permanently closed off just this sort of unauthorized criticism; obviously they are not airtight enough if Campbell is still able to sneak intelligent design into the classroom.
But that's not the worst of it. Campbell goes on to bring the miraculous into the science classroom:
He looked around the room. "Bryce, what is it called when natural laws are suspended - what do you call it when water changes into wine?"
"Miracle?" Bryce supplied.
Campbell nodded. The ball hit the floor again.
So the example of "change" given by Campbell is Mickey Mouse, an example of creation and change effected by an intelligent designer for a purpose. Then Darwinism is explained as minute changes arising spontaneously, without direction. No example from the real world of this is given to counter the intelligent design example of Mickey Mouse. Clearly Campbell is subtly indicating to the sophomores that intelligent design and not Darwinism is reflective of how the world really works. And if a "miracle" is a suspension of natural law, like the drawing of Mickey Mouse is a suspension of the natural laws of pen and paper, then miracles are clearly a perfectly reasonable part of the world.
This has got to stop. Call the lawyers!
(By the way, water changing into wine is not an example of the suspension of natural law. As St. Augustine pointed out long ago, water changes into wine naturally all the time in the grape.)