The article, entitled "Science Betrayed," decries what the author, journalist Shepherd Barbash, sees as a tendency to substitute political propaganda for real science in the K-12 curriculum in many American schools, especially with regard to environmental issues. As Barbash notes at the beginning of his article, "it is a sad irony that the teaching of science in American schools is so unscientific." However, he argues, this is not a new phenomenon:
Science has been misused and poorly taught for centuries. Aristocrats in the United Kingdom espoused eugenics, Soviet Communists embraced Lysenkoism, and theists around the world credit the theory of Intelligent Design...(emphasis mine).
In order to understand what Barbash is implying here about ID, it is first necessary to understand what eugenics and Lysenkoism are. Eugenics was the idea, popular in the early 20th century, that in order to "improve" the human race, individuals who were considered especially "fit" (mentally, physically, etc.) should be encouraged to reproduce, while those who were less "fit" should be discouraged or even forced not to reproduce. This led in many cases to such abuses as forced sterilization of the mentally disabled and members of ethnic minorities. Eugenics was eventually discredited due to its advocacy by the Nazis.
As for Lysenkoism, it was a theory advocated by the Soviet agronomist and biologist Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976). He claimed that certain agricultural techniques he had developed could dramatically increase crop yields, based on the idea that plants were capable of rapid evolution when their environment was changed. Lysenko's ideas reflected those of the French zoologist Jean Baptiste Lemark (1744-1829), who claimed that an organism can pass on physical characteristics it acquired over its lifetime to its descendants (although Lemark's theory of acquired characteristics gained acceptance among some scientists for a while, today it is highly controversial and viewed by many as having been refuted). Lysenkoism received a big boost when Soviet dictator Josef Stalin endorsed it. In fact, a number of Soviet scientists who disagreed with Lysenko's ideas were actually imprisoned and even executed! However, despite its official endorsement by the Soviet state for a time, the vast majority of scientists have rejected Lysenkoism as unproven and pseudo-scientific.
Now we can see what Barbash is implying when he links ID with eugenics and Lysenkoism. In effect, he is claiming that ID, like eugenics and Lysenkoism, is an ideologically-driven theory masquerading as science. However, this is arguably not true. For one thing, ID theorists cite verifiable scientific evidence in support of their claims. For example, ID biochemist Michael Behe in his recent book Darwin Devolves demonstrates from various scientific studies that a large number of genetic mutations in organisms involve the breaking or degrading of genes, rather than the acquisition of new functions by genes, as would be predicted by Darwinian theory. Moreover, while it is true that ID, like eugenics and Lysenkoism, is not accepted by the majority of scientists, that does not automatically make it intellectually suspect. After all, the history of science demonstrates that the majority of scientists have sometimes been wrong. For instance, it was long believed by most cosmologists that the universe has always existed, in a "steady state." However, since the emergence of evidence for a "Big Bang" in the early 20th century, it is generally accepted that the universe has not always existed, but in fact had a beginning.
To be fair, I suspect Barbash has a limited understanding of ID. A brief Internet search of his name suggests that his background is primarily in journalism and education. Although--obviously--I don't know him personally, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he hasn't actually read anything by an ID theorist--though perhaps he has read something by an ID critic. Nevertheless, his citing of ID as an example of supposed pseudo-science--for me, at least--detracts to some extent from his credibility. This is unfortunate since I believe he actually has some legitimate points to make in his article.
Image of Trofim Lysenko from Wikipedia