Amy Harom has a great piece in the August 23, 2008 New York Times on a Florida teacher engaged in teaching evolutionary life science to a high school class that includes religiously committed skeptical students. The article is unusual in looking at the issues as matters of curriculum, requiring knowledgeable responses by educators, and not just philosophical, legal, or even scientific matters. [For people interested in this as curriculum matter, it really is worth reading the article itself, and not just this blog post about it. Articles at nytimes.com are available for free, for at least a week, I think, although it does require a free on-time registration. After a week or so, articles may be archived and then available only for a fee.]
Note the precision of this language, in both the article and in the new Florida standards:
In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.
More precise reference to “life science” denotes the naturalistic life science disciplines, as they are actually practiced, and not some kind of global “Science” such as the ID folks want to argue over with the lawyers and philosophers. The alternative is not some kind of dissenting views or versions of “Science” but, precisely, “religious versions of natural history.”