Matthew Yglesias notes the following about "Intelligent Design", Creationists latest attempt to inject religion into the science classroom:

ID, bullshit as it is, is significantly less pernicious form of bullshit than the formerly-popular Young Earth Creationism and, as such, its advent among the anti-evolution forces is a form of progress.

I suppose one could look at it as progress, but I wouldn't. Creationists have been trying for years to get religion into the biology curriculum. It doesn't much matter whether it's more or less benign, it still isn't science, and it has no place in a biology class.

Now I've long advocated Philosophy as a core part of the public school curriculum, for students as young as 6th graders. This would be the place to discuss varying and alternate interpretations behind the facts. Does apparent, perceived order imply creation for all things? Why are we here?

Philosophy is the place the discuss the "whys" of the world, not the "hows". That's science's job.

Although, a secondary philosophy curriculum scares the shit out of most parents, but it's the only way to do it right. If you're going to say that certain facts presuppose certain worldviews, you're going to need to present alternate worldviews and explore them with equal vigor.

Most ID advocates, Creationists, and the like aren't really interested in equal time for philosophical views. They try to blur the line between science and pseudoscience in order to inject their particular philosophical worldview where it doesn't belong, in the science classroom.

So it's not really progress...it's simply more sophisticated subterfuge.