Next thing you know, these guys will think that a majority popular vote can determine whether, say, the sun revolves around the earth, or whether the earth is flat.
Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.
Don't these people understand that only scientists get to decide what science is? Determining scientific truth is not like getting elected student body president. If you're an ignoramus, you don't get to contribute to the debate.