[thomaswest]

Well, courts make use of "expert testimony" all the time, and so are used to deciding such matters. The ID testimony showed that ID is not science--it was even admitted on the stand by Behe, where he admitted that astrology would fit his definition of science.

So who is to decide what is scientific or not? Do you trust priests or pastors or mullahs or wiccams to decide that? Do you trust psychics and purveyors of magnetic anklets to decide that? Or do you think the properties of atoms and DNA should be decided by majority vote?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The ID testimony showed that ID is not science . . .

It did no such thing. The evolutionist faithful are simply indulging in further wishful thinking by asserting as much. A single court decision does not have the capacity to determine what is or is not science. Even by common use of language it does not make sense to call a tangible, directly observable process (intelligent design) "unscientific", let along "religious" or "supernatural." Science itself cannot objectively determine what is or is not supernatural. Do you really think "expert testimony" will sort it out for us all?

[Fester Chugabrew]

In most cases, science strictly speaking confines itself to experimentation and observation (both directly and indirectly) on a small scale with the aid of reason as it is applied in particular ways. When matters of ultimate history and causation are induced or deduced, and expressions made regarding the same (i.e. when the bigger picture is presented as with evolution in the wide sense) we are entering the realm of philosophy and exiting the realm of science.

In view of the text of our Constitution it is an abomination to expect the theory of evolution to enjoy an exclusive hearing by law in public schools, regardless of any further implications.