But you missed my first post on the matter. If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God then a student has a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back. Since a teacher or student bringing up an opinion that Darwin proves God doesn't exist is exactly that. An opinion.
But you missed my first post on the matter. If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God then a student has a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back. Since a teacher or student bringing up an opinion that Darwin proves God doesn't exist is exactly that. An opinion.
If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God ...
I've seen Dawkins accused, inaccurately, of saying this. But what is it doing in a science class; it's a theological question, not a scientific one.
a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back.
Huh? Why wouldn't showing that the ToE is silent about theology suffice? ID adds nothing to the discussion.
And anyway, the case at hand wasn't anything like the scenario (aka a straw man) you're discussing; Dover was trying to require the teachers to lie to children by saying that ID is scientific, when, as the judge found, it isn't.