[Antonello]

You can't read, you don't understand the establishment clause or that that particular clause is the only issue before the court.

As for ID, I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created it all.

I can read, I do understand the establishment clause as it is currently applied, and I am aware that it is the only issue before this court. Oh, and I never specifically accused you of being an ID'er.

ID is an attempt to insert religious beliefs into science classrooms. The policy being challenged requires a mandatory statement to be presented in a mandatory class to students who are required by law to attend school. Now, to repeat myself in the context of all this: ID proponents are lying by claiming that ID is not based on religion. They are doing so to deliberately try to circumvent the religious rights of the students to not have religion imposed upon them. I cannot fathom someone thinking that such deception is virtuous, and I certainly cannot approve of someone wishing to reward their lies by granting them their desire to force their beliefs on others without the recipients having a choice in the matter.

You say you are not an ID'er, and I believe you. But do you stand in support of those who practice deception in the name of God?

[jwalsh07]

Actually since the you like the word lying, I suppose it could be applied to you. Let's test that proposition.

What religion is being "imposed on students"? By your standards, you are a liar if you can not answer that question. Claiming that ID is a religion is simply false and arguing that ID is being imposed as a mandadtory requirement is patently false since any reading of any ID information is strictly voluntary.

As a rule I don't like to toss the word liar around casually but I also don't flinch at tossing it back in the faces of people who do use it casually. So I repeat, what religion in the context of the 1A has been "imposed on students"?

[Torie]

Allow me to interject myself into this little cat fight. How about "teaching" that there are certain gaps in the evolutionary theory, some which have baffled science to date, without much forward motion, and that it may be that for a very long time, one will be left with speculations regarding how to bridge those gaps, not subject to testing by the scientific method one way or the other, which include, inter alia, ID. How is that as a grand compromise guys?

The point is to be accurate in describing the lay of the land. Secondary schools are not very good at candidly describing what is unknown, and the incompleteness of many scientific theories about how the universe works, and to the extent a better job can be done doing that, this near atheist things that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge.

Slinging theocratic labels around in my view is not very constructive or helpful. And as to Deism in particular, some Deists might posit that God created something that would evolve in random ways, or chaos theory ways, or whatever. God might be bored with something that did not offer up surprises - to him, for his pleasure to savor.