...new insights on evolution at its smallest scale were a major yet little-noticed reason why a federal judge late last year struck down a plan in Dover, Pa., that would have put intelligent design in public school classrooms.
So as it turns out "Intelligent Design" isn't science after all.
To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.
But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.
In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.
Source: Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0602130210feb13,1,1538105.story
No big surprise there, just give science a bit of time and they'll work it out (reminds me of a quote).
Note the category selection, why are "religion and politics" one and the same recently grr