Deity or Deities. Fine with me.
What you guys don't understand is that you're killing yourselves with every court case you win. And, sure, you'll win them all until there's a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court. Right now there are only four good judges at most, depending on how Roberts & Alito pan out (I'm optimistic about them).
The problem you have is that your behavior makes your cause appear suspect. When people pick up the paper every other day, and read headlines about judges banning discussion of ID or other concepts questioning evolution, they wonder what all the fuss is about. You're like the pro-abortion advocates who insist that abortion doesn't take a human life, but then run around screaming that photos or graphic descriptions of abortion procedures be banned. People notice a huge disconnect between rhetoric and behavior.
You guys insist that evolution is the soundest of theories, yet you protect it from questioning as if it's the weakest.
You'd be better served to just allow a brief discussion as I've outlined. Admit that science can't answer everything, or even most things, and the soundness of current theories is always open the change.
It was once thought the sun orbits the earth because that's how it looks to the naked eye. To this day we still use terms such as sunrise and sunset, based on that appearance. Until fairly recently in history, science assumed "solid" rock was indeed solid. It sure looks and feels solid. But we now know rocks are composed of atoms which are mostly empty space.
You tell us that evolution fits the evidence, that life looks like it evolved. Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean for sure that it did.
I believe God exists and that He created and sustains the universe. Quite a few people share my belief. Quite a few don't. They believe the universe simply exists and simply happens to work as it does. But neither of those views are scientific. They're faith. And science is totally ignorant about that. Letting kids know science's limitations would end a lot of rancor, but you know who it would be who would object to it.
Most people don't pick up the DI's press releases or read creationist websites, and that's the only place you'll hear it claimed 'discssion of ID' is banned. Sane media outlets will report that the judge found that ID is not a scientific theory but a religious one, and therefore doesn't belong in science class. And this doesn't happen 'every other day'.
Granted, you have moronic demogogues like O Reilly ranting on about 'The War against Christmas', etc., but this forms a minor part of most people's lives. Most people find it tiresome.
You guys insist that evolution is the soundest of theories, yet you protect it from questioning as if it's the weakest.
Protect it from questioning? I've been answering questions about it for years here. So you're claiming patience in continually rebutting ignorant attacks from dogmatic theocrats, time after time after time, is a sign of insecurity. If we just gave in to you, it would be a sign the theory is sound? LOL!
The problem with your Supreme Court theory is that conservative judges are reluctant to overturn established percedent.
No one is going to sanction teaching religion in public schools.
I have no problem with it, and my view is hardly unique among evolutionists.
The only people I see objecting to the "science is limited" meme is CRIDers. I try to tell that to them all the time, but they believe if it's not accepted as science, then it's not legitimate or true.