It's really funny how the fundamentalist right is desperately reaching to programs even the far left has rejected, to try to justify their program of forcing religion into science class.
"It's really funny how the fundamentalist right is desperately reaching to programs even the far left has rejected, to try to justify their program of forcing religion into science class."
From what little I have read of their writings, I wouldn't classify ID proponents as "fundamentalists." Too many people toss that term about and don't have a clue what constitutes a "fundamentalist." It is actually a hateful term that only describes a very narrow group in Christianity. I would say that most ID proponents, that are Christian, could be described as "conservative evangelicals", when they are protestant. Those that are Roman Catholic I would describe as "traditional." However, I hesitate to describe Roman Catholics because of my lack of knowledge concerning them. Better to let them describe themselves. I am certain they wouldn't appreciate being called "fundamentalists."
Please don't stoop to stereotypes and hyperbole as you, in some cases rightly so, accuse those that hold either a creationist or ID viewpoint of doing.
Personally, I am mistified as to all the "heat and light" this topic generates. Reading of a "disclaimer" statement and making a book available in a library will hardly promote creationism (do you really think any child is really listening, or will read this book?). So, keeping the law in place will have little impact other than symbolic. Conversely, it is hardly going to undermine a totally "naturalistic" approach to science that predominates in the classroom.
Way too much paranoia and uncalled for angry out there. On both sides.