How generous

The DI answers some questions:

Question (2): "Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?"

We do not believe that teaching evolution is necessarily unconstitutional.

Given that Epperson v. Arkansas held that forbidding such teaching is unconsittutional, it would seem that we can go well beyond saying that teaching evolution is "not necessarily unconstitutional." It is in fact a constitutionally protected right of science teachers.

In that 1968 case, the Supreme Court held that "whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law [banning teaching evolution] conflicts with the Establishment Clause."

Later, the DI acknowledges that teaching intelligent design would constitute "indoctrination":

Question (3): "When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?"

Good question! I believe that anything that cannot be justified via empirical evidence, but instead requires some kind of philosophical or metaphysical justification, crosses the line into indoctrination. [straw man omitted]

Given that Intelligent Design would require us to make the rather grand metaphysical justification that supernatural designers exist, we are clearly well into indoctrination with IDC. The Wedge Document, after all, asserted that "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

The solid scholarship and research have yet to materialize, and how strong you consider the IDolators' arguments is a matter of personal opinion. No matter what definition you use, the DI's own language shows there strategy to be one of indoctrination.