Marsupial frogs: Another reason to check out of Darwinism

Jonathan Wells, surely the most hated of the ID guys, explains one reason that he, as an embryologist, has little use for the Darwinian tree of life - marsupial frogs:

Marsupial frogs are very interesting from both a developmental and an evolutionary point of point. As land-dwellers, their development omits the free-living aquatic larval (i.e., tadpole) stage found in other frogs; instead, the embryos develop in a pouch on (usually) the mother’s back. Even more striking is the fact that their earlier development resembles that of birds and mammals, with the embryo developing in a disc on the surface of the egg yolk. (In frogs with a larval stage, the embryo develops as a ball, with cleavage planes passing all the way through the yolk.) Despite their radically different development, adult marsupial frogs look just like other adult frogs.

One genus of New World marsupial frogs (Eleutherodactylus) is the largest known genus of living vertebrates, with over 400 named species. Marsupial frogs put the lie to two Darwinian myths: (1) that homologous features arise through similar developmental pathways, and (2) that development replays evolutionary history.

But the Dawinists can always go to court and force kids to learn (1) and (2) in school, can't they? Why should facts matter as long as the general direction of education supports materialism?

If you are interested in the intelligent design controversy, check out my book, By Design or by Chance?