No, I don't understand the perversion of the English language at all, no matter which side does it. Remedies, while legally available in our system, does not preclude use of the word in other systems.
Our government is not perfect, but courts are part of it, just as school board are part of school systems.
Yeah, so?
There is no point whatsoever in a bunck of perjuring dimwits injecting their ignorance into the science curriculum. Perhaps there is no good argument for federal judges interfering, but it happened.
Which is a problem in our country. Article 3 judges have taken it upon themselves to "guide" America toward a goal they percieve as worthy. That's not their job and all it does is poison the public discourse. It is a profound problem in America, much more so than a disclaimer in Dover, Pa which was turned out by the voters in Dover, Pa absent 'divine' intervention from the judicial oligarchy.
I have been a FReeper for over six years, and the only thing I can say with some assurance is that FReepers will applaud a court decision they approve of and whine about judicial activism when they disagree with a decision.
Which simply demonstrates a failing on your part. Painting with a wide brush always results in getting paint outside the lines.
Now, wait a minute.
Intelligent design, as defined by Wikipedia, makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."
Meaning that a sentient being (or something) had its hand in the creation of life, the universe, and everything as we know it.
I truly don't believe that most of the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science class, would consider that this sentient force capable of creating (designing) life to be a creature from another world or dimension.
They undoubtedly believe that this sentient force must be the being most people call "God" in one language or another.
So, intelligent design is religion in disguise trying to force its way into a science classroom, and while I have absolutely no problem with the idea of intelligent design being taught in school (or classes about religion for that matter), it should not be taught in science class because it is an alternative to science, not science!
Now...if a public school curriculum includes a mandatory class that teaches that this or that particular religion (or religious belief) is the one true religion/belief, then a line has been crossed.
It would be the same as forcing medical schools to teach Voodoo rites as an alternative technique for curing disease.
Now, here's my problem with the idea of intelligent design...it argues that we exist because our organisms where created by some greater force in such a way that we could survive in the world as we know it.
It has at its center, the idea that since we were created out of nothing, there is no available proof to support the idea.
In other words, since man did not exist until created by this omnipotent entity, everything that is found is either man, or not man.
It's a retroactive explanation to molded to support a pre-existing idea.
The opposite of course being the argument that we exist today because this is the form that was able to exist and thrive given the prevailing conditions on this planet.
All in all, I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in science class any more than I believe that it should be taught in Sunday school.