Proponents of Intelligent Design speak compellingly in ways that sound convincing to young people, or people who want affirmation for their faith, and they often hijack science by misusing scientific findings to support their crackpot conjectures.  The saving grace for scientists and other freethinkers is that the ID-nuts don't know what the heck they are talking about...

Witness... Susan Haverkos was running for the Ohio State Board of Education (a position which, unfortunately she was elected to) and included on her campaign page a list of issues that were important to her (the issues aren't there anymore, don't bother looking).  One of which was that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools.  To strengthen her argument she cited research performed by Kelly Dorgan, a Ph. D. candidate in biology at the University of Maine.

The subject of Ms. Dorgan's work was how worms burrow through soil.  Darwin had originally posited one possibility (worms eat their way through the soil), but through her research, Ms. Dorgan discovered that in fact this is not the case.  Ms. Haverkos somehow interpetted this as a fallibility in Darwin and by extension, the theory of evolution.  Here's the text she had on her site before she took it down:

...Ms. Dorgan questioned Darwin’s theory that worms move through the ground by eating dirt. She proved Mr. Darwin’s 120-year-old theory was wrong and her scientific finding has changed scientists’ understanding of the entire underground ecosystem.

She challenged a theory. What if she had been told, “We only teach Darwin’s theories, and you can’t question it”. Worms would still have to “eat dirt”. If she were a student in Ohio, she would have been taught to accept what she was taught, it’s the truth, and that all there is. But somewhere in her education she was taught to question, to be creative, to have tenacity...

But as I noted, ID-nuts don't know what they are talking about, and though she was unfortunately elected to a position where she has a say in how the children of Ohio are educated, Ms. Haverkos was so desperate to find information to support her conclusion (instead of finding a conclusion that the information supports), she latched on to Ms. Dorgan's work.

And Ms. Dorgan's work actually affirms the theory of evolution, specifically convergent evolution.  Kelly Dorgan was quick to point this out in a letter she sent to the Ohio Board of Education:

...Contrary to Ms. Haverkos’ assertions, my work does NOT in any way challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution; in fact, my work on worm burrowing illustrates an outstanding example of convergent evolution...

...I find it very disturbing that my research has been grossly misinterpreted to support the idea of intelligent design. Intelligent design is NOT a testable hypothesis and therefore has no place in science classrooms. Ms. Haverkos points out the importance of challenging theories, which I fully support. However, the way scientists challenge theories is by generating alternative TESTABLE hypotheses and collecting data to TEST those hypotheses...

...I hope the Ohio School Board will consider my research for what it is: a significant advance in a field started 125 years ago by Charles Darwin that has no greater relationship to his theory of evolution than does any other branch of biology...

Ms. Dorgan's letter is eloquent, clear, and thoughtful.  It's really worth a read.  The excellent blog The Panda's Thumb has the whole story.  Check it out.

Ms. Dorgan herself has posted a comment to the article.  Apparently she received an e-mail recently in response to her letter which began "Your mentors appear to have done an excellent job of indoctrinating you with Darwinism. It always amazes me how evolutionists jump to defend themselves when someone uses their research conclusions to critique macroevolution...".  Ms. Dorgan notes that it's amusing to be praised for 'challenging a theory' and then be accused of being 'indoctrinated'.

Oh someone's indoctrinated alright, but it isn't Kelly Dorgan.  If you want to catch of whiff of the indoctrination just check out Ms. Haverkos' profile on the "Citizens for Community Values" (there's a euphemism, ey?) website Ohio Election Central:

S = support, O = oppose.  Who the heck would "oppose" sexual orientation as a protected class?  Newsflash, it already is a protected class.  She supports an anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution, regulation of porn on the internet, school vouchers, and teaching alternatives to evolution (of which there are none).  But the real kicker is the abortion restrictions column.  The candidates were given a list of 8 choices for when abortion should be allowed, and were asked to check all that were appropriate.  Ms. Haverkos chose "1. Never".  I hasten to point out that "Life of the mother" was on the list.  Apparently Ms. Haverkos feels if you are going to die during childbirth, well honey, it's just your time to go.  Tough winkies.

If that's not the profile of an ultraconservative right-wing religious nut, I don't know what is.  Indoctrinated?  Big time.