John Rennie brings up a whole series of questions prompted by the Schönborn editorial, like this one:

What are the strong scientific alternatives to evolution that you would like to have taught in schools? The cardinal is parroting the standard IDist line that students should be taught about the "inadequacies" of evolution and exposed to other theories that are equally scientific--purely in the interests of better education and intellectual rigor, of course. But IDists never clarify what those alternative theories are. Certainly they don't present them. It is not sufficient to say, "At various times in life's history, some intelligence gave life one or more of the qualities it possesses today." That doesn't even amount to a hypothesis.

Everyone who has kids knows about that irritating phase they go through shortly after they learn to talk where they repeatedly ask "Why?"—and after you answer, they just ask "Why?" again. You usually realize after a while that they aren't really asking out of genuine curiousity, but only because they love to make Daddy jump through hoops for them. I think the ID creationists are playing a similar game: they've got a formula to make the media jump up and respond, but it contains no intellectual content and certainly doesn't lead to any new ideas in biology. They are reduced to mindlessly parroting the same unthinking noise solely for the attention it gets them.

As for my kids, the solution to their bad habit was to either insist that they ask a more specific question, forcing them to think a little bit, or handing them a book and letting them explore to find the answer on their own…which would lead to real questions. I don't think the gang at the Discovery Institute has the maturity, the respectability, the competence, or the integrity of my children, though.