I think DI uses the list to add credibility to their claim that real scientists support a healthy skepticism regarding science and oppose dogmatic teaching of facts, as often occurs in science classrooms today.
If you really think that is the reason for the publication of the statement and the list it is my opinion you have been fooled and are supporting political manipulation.
In my high school science classes there was a tendancy to the bare presentation of facts without proper context. In my daughters there was a much, much better presentation of the process and reasoning allowing for real analysis. Here in Canada, at least, there has been significant improvement.
Of course, it is entirely possible that science education in the US is not as good. If I remember correctly international studies hint that this is true.
If you have a concern (and I think it is valid to have one) about the state of science education in your country then signing that statment was not a good way to allow for any improvment. mmm No, maybe I should take that back. It is just vaguely possible that, at great cost in court and class time, that a backlash against this kind of political manipulation will result in improvments. However, I don't think it is the best way to go about it.
Again, perhaps you should track the media and get an idea of how that statement is being used. It is NOT the shortcomings of Darwins ideas that are being discussed when it is used. It is a suggestion that there are serious flaws in the current theory.
Even your comment on Gould and punctuated equilibrium shows a lack of your understanding. Even Darwin didn't suggest totally steady rates of change. Certainly Gould isn't proposing anything different from differing rates of change. This kind of misuse of both the statement and of current theory is not likely going to help improve science education. It will more likely waste a lot of time and effort conteracting the deliberatly misleading use of that statement.
™ Version 4.2
