Replies

It is now illegal to have religious motivations as an educator or politician. At least according to this lame brain.

It does not matter if ID is scientifically sound. It does not matter if there is no mention of deity in the ID proposition. (Even though this would not be unconstitutional because it does not establish any particular religion.)

What matters to this nut is that the people who want ID openly express their faith.

They are guilty of being illegally motivated by religious faith.

BTW, ID does not contradict the evolutionary theory of speciation. It also does not explore theology. It is a postulate about the origins of life.

Most high school level or below discussion of evolution fails to make this clear distinction: evolution does not explain the existence of life.

ID is the best scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.

"What matters to this nut is that the people who want ID openly express their faith. "
And a biology class in public school is not a proper place for their expressing it. There is no lack of suitable avenues - theology classes, comparative religion courses, seminaries, sunday schools and the like. Thus I would not call him a nut.

Don't be too cocky here. The Dover group is actually fairly lucky that the judge didn't throw them in jail. It seems that they _lied_ early on in the case about their motivations, and some factual matters.

I would _strongly urge_ ID people to not use this case as a jumping board, precisely because we cannot be tied to people who lie to promote their cause. I have full confidence in ID, as well as Creationism, but I have to agree with this judge that the Dover board was engaged in some fishy business with regards to this suit.