Not the plan
But it replaces the old hick rhetoric with something much more duplicitous, a kind of doublespeak in which it is suddenly the mainstream scientists who are the dogma-peddlers and the ideologues and the traitors to objective study.
The ID-ers, as they are known, accuse mainstream scientists of subscribing to something they call "methodological naturalism" that insists as a matter of faith that biological evolution occurred on its own, by accident, at random, with no intervention from a higher being. In their opinion, such a conclusion is unscientific, because there is no proof that God was not involved and plentiful evidence, at least in their eyes, that certain species and natural phenomena are designed objects, the creation of a higher consciousness.
The ID argument is absurd for a number of reasons, first because there is nothing in orthodox interpretations of evolutionary theory that precludes religious belief, and secondly because the insistence on an Intelligent Designer inevitably pushes evolutionary study into the realm of the supernatural, and thus away from the ambit of scientific inquiry. The ID-ers' tendency to argue against many of the central tenets of Darwinian thought, deriding it as "just a theory", also does nothing to impress mainstream science, and indeed moves many prestigious institutions to something close to blind fury.
It's hard not to conclude, after listening to them carefully for a few hours, that this is really about something other than the finer points of evolutionary science - on which plenty of respected scientists argue every day of the week.
My emphasis. This is the failure of the hearings. Reporters are starting to smell something. Where they used to think that there might be some reason to give ID a fair shake, they are seeing that ID is creationism in a cheap tux.