My column in the paper today is about intelligent design and the push by some academics to do a better job engaging with the public about the controversy.

Some scientists critical of intelligent design don't like to see public debate on the issue because they think that gives ID too much credibility. But it remains part of the public, and political, dialogue.

The Stranger has a story this week by Josh Feit about Mike McGavick's support for teaching intelligent design in public schools:

McGavick did a lot of qualifying: He thinks Darwinism has more scientific weight than intelligent design; he's not running for school board; curriculum should be set at the state, not the federal, level. Finally, however, McGavick stated that, yes, intelligent design should be taught in public schools. And it's okay if it's taught in science class, he added.

I asked McGavick spokesman Elliott Bundy about this and he added, "Mike thinks students should be exposed to all ideas and theories — and the scientific evidence for and against those ideas."

On this issue, Cantwell has the quicker answer. Spokeswoman Amanda Mahnke told me: "Senator Cantwell believes that intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools."

UPDATE: Ah, it seemed like such a nice simple, short, post. Of course as soon as I published the above with Cantwell's "quicker answer" I see that Eric Earling has gone and complicated the issue by doing some reporting.

He points out a 2001 Canwtell vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment says in part, that it is the "sense of the Senate":

where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

Earling writes:

Call me crazy, but the intent of that amendment is pretty clear in supporting the discussion of all available theories, though it obviously allows evolution to be the dominant focus of instruction. Whether intelligent design is correct or not it certainly seems to fit the intent of the amendment to explain intelligent design at the same time the theory of evolution is taught so students have a more complete understanding of competing theories.

Cantwell spokeswoman Katharine Lister says, "It was not an intelligent design vote." And if you look at the 91 senators that voted for it, including senators Kennedy, Clinton, Murray, Feingold and Wellstone, it is hard to imagine they thought they were backing the teaching of intelligent design, or even backing "teaching the controversy."

But once it was passed, pro-ID forces embraced it as an official stamp of approval for teaching of their theory. Scientists and academics on the other side worried that is how it would be read and launched a massive lobbying campaign to have the language removed. They were successful.

The original resolution likely was meant as a pro-ID statement since that's where Santorum's inclinations were at the time. (He later backed off his support.) Some, including the National Center for Science Education say senators didn't know what they were voting on:

On June 14, the bill, including the Santorum Amendment, passed the Senate 91-8. It seems likely that most of the senators who voted for the bill were unaware of the antievolution implications of the Santorum Amendment, although Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) alluded to them in their remarks in the Congressional Record.

Jeremy Leaming at Americans United for Separation of Church and State told me this morning:

The resolution was a pro-ID subterfuge designed to bolster the Discovery Institute's claim to have congressional support for its efforts. Few of the senators who voted to support the "Santorum amendment" actually could have recognized the resolution for what it truly was, however.

Here's what ended up in an introductory statement to the conference committee report:

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.

The Senate vote, though, and the remaining language remained a weapon in the battle between IDers and evolutionists. John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote in January 2002:

Most people would consider that statement an endorsement of the right of teachers to present both sides of the scientific controversy over evolution.

MORE: In the comments, Richard Shepard asked about the Green and Libertarian party Senate candidates' positions. (He's Libertarian Bruce Guthrie's campaign treasurer.) I sent e-mails to Guthrie, Green Aaron Dixon and Democrat Hong Tran.

Guthrie's campaign manager, Travis Wright, said the candidate believes that if schools accept federal funds, "those funds should be spent teaching scientific methodology and promoting genuine inquisitiveness. If local schools prefer another direction, the impetus is on them to find alternative funding." He said that Guthrie "personally believes Intelligent Design is a subject more appropriate for a philosophy course than a science class but the real issue is whether or not the Federal government should be developing curricula."