The case is about the Constitution -- specifically whether ID is so infused with theology that the school board's decision to present it violates the First Amendment.
From what I read, its a statement about intelligent design. Its not being taught at all. Its merely a disclaimer that there might be a different opinion called intelligent design.
How does that violate the Constitution?
I have a feeling that is going to be lost in the trial: that no one is teaching intelligent design.
Yeh and the faulty logic of separation of church and state.....1st amendment my a##!
~ Patrick Henry If one wants to use that argument then we can also say, "The case is about the Constitution -- specifically whether Darwinianism is so infused with supernaturalism (metaphysics) that the school board allowing it to be taught in sciences classes violates the First Amendment."
From the horse's mouth, himself:
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- [Charles] Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838
As proudly quoted front and center by Michael T Ghiselin in his book Metaphysics and the Origin of Species