The Washington Post has an editorial condemning the Dover school board and the Kansas school board and obscuring the facts by equating the actions of both:
This week the Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 to force teachers to include intelligent design's critique of evolution in their curriculum.
As noted previously, the Kansas board emphatically did not mandate teaching intelligent design. The Kansas board merely included more science related to evolutionary theory in its standards. The Post seems to take the position that if you provide kids with any scientific evidence that tends to contradict macroevolutionary theory, that must be "intelligent design's critique," and therefore unconstitutional. Under this logic, the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion (which are now part of the Kansas standards) are unconstitutional. Information about them must be banned from public schools. Presumably Stephen J. Gould's book Wonderful Life, which discusses these fossils, must also be banned? Wow.
I ask again what I asked before:
What justification is there for insisting that students be taught the evidence for evolutionary theory but banning any evidence against it, like the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, which all mainstream scientists acknowledge? What possible basis can there be for banning this information, when many people view this as extremely relevant to evaluating macroevolutionary theory?