[PatrickHenry]

God isn't on trial here. Nor is evolution.

The case is about the Constitution -- specifically whether ID is so infused with theology that the school board's decision to present it violates the First Amendment.

[Adder]

From what I read, its a statement about intelligent design. Its not being taught at all. Its merely a disclaimer that there might be a different opinion called intelligent design.

How does that violate the Constitution?

I have a feeling that is going to be lost in the trial: that no one is teaching intelligent design.

[NVD]

Yeh and the faulty logic of separation of church and state.....1st amendment my a##!

[Matchett-PI]

"The case is about the Constitution -- specifically whether ID is so infused with theology that the school board's decision to present it violates the First Amendment."

~ Patrick Henry If one wants to use that argument then we can also say, "The case is about the Constitution -- specifically whether Darwinianism is so infused with supernaturalism (metaphysics) that the school board allowing it to be taught in sciences classes violates the First Amendment."

From the horse's mouth, himself:

"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- [Charles] Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838

As proudly quoted front and center by Michael T Ghiselin in his book Metaphysics and the Origin of Species

[Tribune7]

The case is about the Constitution -- specifically the ability for left-leaning judges to interpret the law without regard to the intent of the Founders or any legislative action.