Have you read any of the treatises on ID? Highly scientific (even if you disagree with their premise and conclusion) and do not belong on the "Religious" shelves at the bookstores.
In other words, the judge ruled that Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT incompatable with "religion".
Now, there are many religious figures who assert that the theory of evolution IS incompatable with their religion. The judge said that HE knows their religion better than THEY do, and that Evolution is compatable with what I guess he considers "true religion".
This is NOT an argument over whether religion should be taught in schools -- the Judge ruled that the school board's argument was that evolution was an affront to religion, and that they were wrong about that.
I presume that this means the board's argument was in part based on the concept that a person shouldn't have their religion attacked when they attend a public school. The judge could have said that the state has every RIGHT to present facts that are in opposition to religious beliefs.
But the Judge, according to the sentence above, didn't say that the state could do so -- he said that teaching evolution did not present opposition to any religion.
So, in summary, the judge just said that, if your religious leaders say creation is true, and evolution is false, you simply are not a REAL religion, because evolution is compatable with "true religions", as determined by the United States of America.
If your religion opposes evolution, the United States (through this judge) says your religion isn't a real religion. They have established a basic tenet of REAL religion, which is that evolution is accepted.
That is what I mean by government establishing religion. They do the same when they argue that a Menorah is OK because it isn't a religious symbol, but the 10 commandments is forbidden because it is inherently a religious teaching. Thus giving the government "seal of approval" of the religion of christianity, while relegating other religions to a lesser status.
I like to illustrate this with a somewhat inaccurate example: You can burn the symbols of ANY religion in this country, except the one TRUE religion, which the government provides with a special protection not even afforded to our own american flag.
What do I speak of? Well, the ultimate symbol of the true religion, the Cross upon which our Lord and Savior died. You can't burn one of those and argue it's freedom of speech, we'll throw you in jail for 10 years for even ASSISTING in burning a cross.
When was the last time you heard of someone jailed for burning the symbols of any other religion?
Do you really want judges (read, lawyers) deciding what is and is not science? Heck. Even scientists and philosphers of science cannot establish agreed upon demarcation criteria for science.
Cordially,
>No. He decided what is and what is not science.
Most excellent