Events at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and the uproar surrounding the case of Richard Sternberg should not be considered in isolation. The larger context of controversies over claims of the validity of Intelligent Design (ID) "theory" is relevant here. Particularly informative is the legal decision by Judge John E. Jones (Dec. 20, 2005) in the case of Kitmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al.: "... we first note that since ID is not a science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion." (pp. 133-134). ""In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (p. 136 -- see www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). \nTo suggest that ID is a theory in the same way that evolution by natural selection is a theory is an inherently weak argument; it actually draws on a post-modernist, political correctness outlook, where all views are of equal merit (see the commentary "Oppressed by Evolution" by Matt Cartmill, 1998; Discover 19(3): 78-83; Cartmill is a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and is a past-president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists). \nSuch "all views are valid" perspectives are simply not scientific. A couple of other particularly salient articles on this point are:\n"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie, 2002; Scientific American 287(1): 78-86 (Rennie is editor of Scientific American); and,\n"Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology" by Liza Gross, 2006; PLoS Biology 4(5): e167.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167 (PLoS Biology is an open access journal that is freely available at: www.plosbiology.org).