[unlearner]

"This judge has done nothing to abridge your right to worship as you see fit. The fact that you believe this ruling abridges your right to practice your religion (in the public schools) proves that you believe that intelligent design is religious in nature."

Wrong. The judge ruled that the proponents were religiously motivated.

How would you feel if Christians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible advocated teaching evolution in schools, but a judge said it cannot be taught because the proponents are religiously motivated?

ID is not a Christian doctrine. ID is a scientific hypothesis which is compatible with Biblical doctrine. The facts of evolution (not the general theory of common descent) are also compatible with Biblical doctrine.

ID could be compatible with pretty much any religion as well as atheism. The only thing ID is not compatible with is abiogenesis, which is not science.

ID does not contradict evolution. ID hypothesizes about the origin of life, not the origin of species.

[saganite]

How would you feel if Christians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible advocated teaching evolution in schools, but a judge said it cannot be taught because the proponents are religiously motivated?


You postulate an absurdity to prove your point? Your ability to present your case is on a par with the people who presented the case for creationism, oops sorry I meant ID, in court.