[donh]

I said that motivation absent action is not actionable. In your flawed analogy there was action.

Are we or are we not talking about the Dover schoolboard, and did or did not the schoolboard do something (rather than think something) that was the cause of the court battle?

When the Dover school board says that ID is OOL theory and OOL theory is a discussion for the family, it doesn;t matter what the motivation is. The action was to keep ID out of science class and remand it to the home.

Oh, that's cute. The action was to expose children in compulsory attendance at public schools to an argument, under cover of apparent scientific respectability, that a Prime Mover God exists

[jwalsh07]

Oh, that's cute.

Cute? I dunno but I do know that cute is not unconstitutional.

The action was to expose children in compulsory attendance at public schools to an argument, under cover of apparent scientific respectability, that a Prime Mover God exists

God is not unconstitutional either. But that's neither here nor there since God was never mentioned in the disclaimer. What was stated was that ID is OOL theory and OOL theories should be discussed in the home. Neo Darwinian Theory is not an OOL theory so I'm having trouble understanding why your hair is standing on end.

[jwalsh07]

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Is this disclaimer unconstitutional?