Ah, vindication!

Not really.

Almost two-thirds of the respondents in a recent Pew poll "said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution". I don't think I would go that far. I'd be open to mentioning the basic argument, that if you find a pocket watch in the path, you don't think that matter just happened to arrange itself that way. I think that's a defensible argument that should be considered along with the evidence for evolution. The fact that you have a whole line of earlier versions of the watch would be evidence that some organizing principle is at work, but it doesn't say what it is. Evolution shows the same thing, but it doesn't explain how life happened in the first place.

I would argue that the very first cell that could replicate itself in a manner that could adapt or create new species and all the intricate and ingenious mechanisms that are contained in ordinary organisms takes more of an explanation than random chance in a chemical soup. Science teachers shouldn't claim that they know that it happened by chance, by seeding from meteorites, or by advanced intelligence. That's what is not science. Closing off any possibility that involves intelligent design isn't either.