Even the Discovery Institute has essentially used that as their template for success. Their wedge strategy has basically outlined their tactics on how to advance this.
I've always been suspicious that fundamental and evangelical Christians have embraced the Intelligent Design argument since it never mentions specifically God as the Creator. Usually when any "watering down" and not calling God a God occurs, these groups simply will not tolerate it. Yet, for the last 10 years or so, they have endorsed something they normally and rightfully would reject.
This whole thing is based on a lie to gain acceptance. Even the parties in the suit were cited for lying (perjury perhaps) during the case process. Those of faith are reduced to advancing a lie? The ends justify the means? Are we proud of that?
Science and scripture won't always line up. Those who wrote and recorded what has now become scripture often had little understanding. Most if not all could ot fathom a round world when in fact it was widely understood that there were indeed 4 corners to our earth, or the Sun rotated around the earth.
I frankly have no problem with the differences of the origin of man being discussed in school. As a Christian, I do have faith that in some shape or form God had his hand in all this.
But to create a Trojan Horse and then lie about it.........
Truly this particular case was more about the supporters of the intelligent design movement than the movement itself much less the intelligent design hypothesis.
Correlation is not causation.
The appearance of storks and babies at the same time does not mean there is a causal relationship.
Likewise, that most all atheists are evolutionist does not mean that there is a causal relationship between the two or that evolution should not be taught because it would establish atheism as the state religion.
And likewise, the intelligent design hypothesis must stand or fall on its own merits - regardless of who is supporting it or is against it and their motives or behavior.
My two cents...
Not much different than claiming the word "scientific" for oneself while espousing and maintaining atheistic assumptions, is it?
Jeepers, what is it with people today? Everything's a conspiracy! (Or at least those things we "don't like" when they happen anyway. Abolish the unfavored viewpoint! Censor all ideas that are not "popular" or acceptable to me!!!)
You characterize the crux of the trial as a nefarious conspiracy of devious Christians trying to smuggle God and religion into the public schools. Which is to accuse Christians of amazing bad faith, of lying about their true purposes, etc. Do you really think that is a warranted assessment?
Ask yourself: What possible good could accrue to the "Christian cause" utilizing such a strategy? Please think about that for a moment.
FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
This may sound strange to you, but I believe it is quite possible to speak of God without any religious motivation whatever. For instance, the classical Greek and generic Judeo-Christian development of man's understanding of God is an historical and cultural thing -- i.e., it is factually based -- and provided religious proselytizing favoring any particular confession is not included, I see instruction in such matters as properly belonging in the education syllabus geared to young Americans.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
Now the Progessive Left (and certainly many neo-Darwinists) may well prefer contemporary school children NOT to know that the Founders of this nation believed in a Creator God. But for them NOT to know that means they do not know the first, perhaps most salient thing, about American history and culture.
Be that as it may. The issue is ID, and its assertion that "certain features" of natural beings cannot be accounted for by random mutation and natural selection alone. Another pesky feature of ID (to a neo-Darwinist, anyway), is its challenge to the reductionist materialist presupposition that lies at the root of metaphysical naturalism. Plus as mentioned, ID does not restrict its investigation to only material and efficient causes.
The modern scientific method owes a very great deal to Sir Francis Bacon, who deliberately set about to restrict scientific investigation to just those two causes. But modern physics and information theory cannot be construed in such narrow terms. And neither (IMHO) can biology.
Formal and final causes are not "metaphysical." They are evident everywhere in nature. Perhaps it is time for science to take notice of them, and adjust its methods accordingly.
Well, FWIW joesbucks. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply.