Misleading: No Child Behind act and teaching intelligent design

I came across the following misleading statement on the Christian Communication Network

Nevertheless, a growing number of credible scientists now subscribe to the theory of intelligent design. Additionally, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 encouraged schools to inform students of the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution and make them aware of alternative theories like intelligent design.

Read No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

From the creative website of the Discovery Institute's Center for [s]the renewal of[/s] science and culture we read

where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” Commonly called the “Santorum amendment” (because Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania offered the original version of the wording), this declaration was included as part of House Report 107-33

Notice how the DI somewhat misleadingly suggests that the Santorum amendment item 78) was part of the act, it was not. It was part of the House report which has no legal standing. Additionally, notice how the act does not call for the teaching of Intelligent Design.

Santorum Amendment (part of the House report not the act):`The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.'

In a letter to the National Center for Science Education, the House Education and the Workforce Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. George Miller (Calif.), wrote that “the report language should not be construed to promote specific topics within the subject areas … [S]uch decisions are best left to the scientific community, rather than legislators.”

Read Rep. Geaorge Miller's letter

Intelligent Design could not fall in the category of alternative theories since it does not qualify as such.

When will they learn...

Read more!