>>His group does not work against science education!<<
I’ve read a great deal about the discovery Institute. They advocate teaching things in science class not based on science. That meets my definition of working against science education.
Second, and you won't like this, a fair reading of ID literature will reveal there is a lot of science in the movement. It is the bias and presuppositions of naturalism that have poisoned the well when considering the assertions of intelligent design advocates.
Let's see what the great Darwinian (and Darwin Medalist) J.B.S Haldane advocated:
Marxism is the application of scientific method to the widest field so far achieved by man. If Marxism were taken for granted, or even if its general principles were widely understood in this country, such emphasis would be unnecessary.And of course the great Darwinian, Horatio Newman, advocated teaching eugenics in science class, but that's another story.
Sixty years ago Karl Marx died in London. Every year since his death he has had a greater influence on world history above all since Lenin put his theories into practice in 1917. [Marx] can justly be compared with contemporaries like Faraday, Darwin, and Pasteur, who are still influencing our lives and thoughts, because their ideas were important not only for their own time, but for many generations to come. These men applied scientific method to new fields. So did Marx.
Just as Darwin applied scientific method to the problem of man's ancestry, and Pasteur to that of his diseases, Marx applied it to history, politics, and economics.
We celebrate the anniversary of the great teacher who has shown us the way out of our present distresses, who has demonstrated that there are no limits to the application of science.
J.B.S Haldane, Science Advances, 1947