The Great Debate
Darwin's theory of evolution is becoming less of a theory and more of a fact. 
Scientific research shows evolution to be "a very compelling conclusion, especially now that we have the ability to study DNA."[1] There's little dissent in the scientific community as to whether or not life on this planet has evolved: the consensus is Yes, it has. These days, creationism has fallen by the wayside to be replaced by a new "theory" called intelligent design. Intelligent design acknowledges the considerable credibility of evolutionary theory, but puts a different spin on it. Man has evolved, but he has evolved at the hands of an outside being, not by "random variation and natural selection."[2]
The problem with intelligent design isn't what it claims, but rather what it claims to be: science. In reality, intelligent design is merely a "pseudoscience,"[3] despite what Johnson may have to say about the matter. Both evolution and intelligent design use only what the human eye can see, but evolution is the product of careful observation through the scientific process while intelligent design relies on vague presumptions and judgment calls. Studebaker says about intelligent design:
For example, if I see someone's name carved in a tree, I know by experience that an intelligent creature carved that name. It wasn't created by the natural processes of the wind and rain. On the other hand, if I see the shape on an animal in a cloud, I conclude this shape was formed by natural causes. So by experience we easily recognize when an intelligent agent has been at work.[4]
Intelligent design "is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe"[5] and by attempting to pass it off 
as science its proponents are trying to circumvent the separation of church and state and put creationism back into the classroom. But why has this issue become so polarized? Why do supporters of intelligent design push so hard to put the theory into public school curriculums? President Bush and other advocates of intelligent design feel that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."[6] Maybe religious groups are afraid that by not teaching an alternative to evolution, people might question their faith when it seems incompatible with spiritual doctrine.
I believe that while intelligent design and evolution aren't incompatible with one another, intelligent design isn't objective -- it pushes a religious agenda -- therefore it shouldn't be taught as an objective alternative to evolution. Intelligent design has a place, just not in the classroom.
Notes
1. Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution," in Victorian Literature, ed. Jerome Bump (Austin: Jenn's Copy & Binding, 2006), 635C.
2. Ibid., 635B
3. Marvin Olasky and John Perry, "Monkey Business," in Victorian Literature, ed. Jerome Bump (Austin: Jenn's Copy & Binding, 2006), 635A.
4. John Studebaker, "Using God's Design to Communicate Faith," in Victorian Literature, ed. Jerome Bump (Austin: Jenn's Copy & Binding, 2006), 632C.
5. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution," in Victorian Literature, ed. Jerome Bump (Austin: Jenn's Copy & Binding, 2006), 635E.
6. Ibid., 635E.