▁policy ▁requiring ▁inclusion ▁of ▁alternatives ▁to ▁evolution ▁be ▁taught , ▁which ▁it ▁was ▁not , ▁in ▁ 2 0 0 3 ▁intellig ent ▁design ' s ▁three ▁most ▁prominent ▁legisl ators , ▁John ▁Bo eh ner , ▁Jud d ▁Gre gg ▁and ▁Sant orum ▁provided ▁a ▁letter ▁to ▁the ▁Disc overy ▁Institute ▁giving ▁it ▁the ▁go ▁ahead ▁to ▁invoke ▁the ▁am end ment ▁as ▁evidence ▁of ▁" C ong ress ' s ▁re jection ▁of ▁the ▁idea ▁that ▁students ▁only ▁need ▁to ▁learn ▁about ▁the ▁dominant ▁scientific ▁view ▁of ▁controvers ial ▁topics ". ▁This ▁letter ▁was ▁also ▁sent ▁to ▁execut ives ▁on ▁the ▁Ohio ▁Board ▁of ▁Education ▁and ▁the ▁Texas ▁Board ▁of ▁Education , ▁both ▁of ▁which ▁were ▁subject ▁to ▁Disc overy ▁Institute ▁intellig ent ▁design ▁campaign s ▁at ▁the ▁time . ▁ ▁Scient ific ▁community ' s ▁response ▁The ▁position ▁of ▁scient ists ▁and ▁science ▁educ ators ▁has ▁been ▁that ▁although ▁evolution ▁has ▁generated ▁a ▁great ▁deal ▁of ▁political ▁and ▁philosoph ical ▁debate ▁it ▁is , ▁in ▁the ▁scientific ▁fields , ▁regarded ▁as ▁fact . ▁They ▁said ▁that ▁the ▁am end ment ▁creates ▁a ▁mis per ception ▁that ▁evolution ▁is ▁not ▁fully ▁accepted ▁in ▁the ▁scientific ▁community , ▁and ▁thus ▁weak ens ▁science ▁curr ic ula . ▁As ▁a ▁response , ▁a ▁coal ition ▁of ▁ 9 6 ▁scientific ▁and ▁educational ▁organizations ▁wrote ▁a ▁letter ▁to ▁the ▁conference ▁committee , ▁ur ging ▁that ▁the ▁am end ment ▁be ▁str icken ▁from ▁the ▁final ▁bill . ▁ ▁In ▁addition , ▁oppon ents ▁of