Nature has an editorial and a news item on Bush's Intelligent Design creationism flap. The striking thing about both of them is how incredibly optimistic they are, although they also emphasize that while the response by the scientific community has been vigorous, it has to continue to be strong and outspoken. I agree with this idea, too, although I regret to say that it would be personally impossible for me to do the political part (can you guess why?):

Many experts say that scientists should get more involved in local politics—especially on school boards, where the conflicting views of scientists and advocates of intelligent design often play out. "Scientists have to be evangelical about explaining what science is, as well as its limitations," says Krauss.

I've put the complete text of both articles below the fold. They are well worth reading. They cheered me up, at least.

Nature 436, 753 (11 August 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436753a
Keeping religion out of science class
President Bush's endorsement of 'intelligent design' has sparked a national debate in which scientists are well positioned to prevail.

Comments made last week by President George W. Bush have encouraged advocates of 'intelligent design', the idea that a hidden hand must lie somewhere behind the evolution of life. But the scientific community has responded energetically and effectively to Bush's statements. If researchers persevere, they can win this argument and keep religion out of the biology classroom.

In an informal 90-minute interview with newspaper reporters from his home state of Texas on 1 August, Bush talked at length about everything from abortion to illegal immigration. When asked about his view of intelligent design, the president was hesitant at first, re-iterating that, as governor of Texas, he had supported the right of local school boards to choose what is taught in the classroom. Prodded further to give an opinion, Bush said: "I'm not suggesting—you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

A great deal has been made of the president's off-the-cuff endorsement of intelligent design. But it is worth noting the hesitancy of his comments: he didn't even mention intelligent design by name. Bush is a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian, and religious conservatives are often credited with helping him win last year's election. But he knows perfectly well that the introduction of religious ideas into science class is a potentially explosive issue in US politics—and not necessarily one that works in his favour.

The teaching of creationism in schools has been energetically advocated in parts of the United States for decades, but it has rarely help politicians to win elections, even in the heartland. Take Kansas, whose school board sought in 1999 to restrict the teaching of evolution in public schools. A vocal outcry by scientists, business leaders and others soon led to the electoral defeat of the board members in question and a repeal of the restrictions (see Nature 406, 552; 2000).

Those Republicans who anticipate an encounter with the electorate are therefore cautious about the open embrace of intelligent design. Senator Rick Santorum (Republican, Pennsylvania), for example, is a Catholic and one of the most conservative members of the Senate, who faces a tough re-election battle next year. Just after Bush's remarks, he forthrightly declared: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Perhaps Santorum judges, wisely, that otherwise-conservative voters in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh would draw the line at backing a senator who wants to teach creationism to little Brad and Britney in biology class.

Even hard-line creationists are aware of the political price of appearing to be against science in a nation that puts so much stock in it. Part of the idea of intelligent design, of course, is subterfuge, an attempt to introduce religion under the guise of science. In Kansas, after the last row died down, a more conservative school board was elected once again, and now may approve the inclusion of intelligent design in its school curriculum. The progress of this effort—which scientists have once again made a concerted effort to oppose—will be a bellwether for the rest of the country.

Part of the idea of intelligent design is subterfuge, an attempt to introduce religion under the guise of science.

As we report on Scientists attack Bush over intelligent design, scientific leaders have responded effectively to Bush's ill-advised comments. Researchers from a range of disciplines have spoken out vigorously, making it clear that the president's apparent willingness to allow intelligent design into the classroom is at odds with America's pressing need to improve science education. They should continue to speak out in all available forums.

This argument has reverberated in US politics since at least 1925, when John Scopes, a high-school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was convicted and fined for teaching evolution. The fight will go on—but science and reason can ultimately win.

Nature 436, 761 (11 August 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436761a
Scientists attack Bush over intelligent design
Virginia Gewin
President's remarks spark angry response.

US scientists are again on the offensive against intelligent design, an idea that many see as thinly veiled creationism. The latest round stems from remarks by President George W. Bush, who on 1 August told a small group of reporters that he thought both evolution and intelligent design "ought to be properly taught" in US schools.

Scientists and science educators cried foul almost immediately, saying that such remarks could further the notion that intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Many researchers felt compelled to respond, even though Bush made his comments off the cuff in an informal setting. Because of the president's status, they say, his words could be used to introduce religious ideas into science classes.

"What the president has done is give impetus to people who would like to push their side of this agenda, and that's a real problem," says Fred Spilhaus, executive director of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), one of the first groups to respond to Bush's remarks. The AGU statement carried the headline "President confuses science and belief, puts schoolchildren at risk". The American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society and the American Astronomical Society also released statements saying that intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.

Intelligent design—the notion that certain features of living organisms are so complex that they must have been shaped by an external intelligence—has enjoyed increasing prominence among the US public, although not among scientists (see Nature 434, 1062−1065; 2005). This is despite Bush's science adviser John Marburger stating on the record that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and a frequent speaker on evolution issues, says that all scientists should be concerned. "Make no mistake—this is not an attack on evolution, but on science," he says.

Researchers are looking for new ways to fight the public-relations battle between science and intelligent design. Douglas Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says he would like to see a public-relations push mounted by an independent scientific group, such as the National Academy of Sciences.

Many experts say that scientists should get more involved in local politics—especially on school boards, where the conflicting views of scientists and advocates of intelligent design often play out. "Scientists have to be evangelical about explaining what science is, as well as its limitations," says Krauss.

Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, adds that scientists should highlight that there is no dissent over evolution within the scientific community and that if intelligent design had scientific merit, it would have been addressed by the vigorous and open scientific process.