It's the teachers who are the plaintiffs in the case. The argument is that the school board can't use the pretext of charlatan pseudo science to sneak religious superstitions into science class and force qualified teachers who know better to teach it against their will and better judgment.
I never realized our Constitution had so much to say about the teaching of evolution. Must have missed it but I'm sure it's in there with the right to an abortion, isn't it? I mean the ACLU understands the Constitution better than any other group. We all defer to their stance on everything.
Have you noticed how creationist attitudes mirror the attitudes of communists? Both have an innate loathing of the "elite" and play on peoples' distrust of those smarter, more educated, or more successful to garner power.
Actually the plaintiffs are parents who are contesting the situation based on the 'establishment clause' of the Constitution...it has little to do with teaching one theory over another...the problem for the plaintiffs is that it suggests religion in the public place...
Additionally, your use of the term 'teach' is highly inaccurate in this case...ID is introduced by a single short paragraph indicating that some people believe in it as an explanation of species origination, and gives supporting material to be studied at some other time and place...no teacher is being forced to 'teach' ID in Dover.
AS usual, people need to get facts straight before opining...
Thanks. I was going to make a similar comment, but you said it quite well. My only quibble would have been to change "sneak religious supersitions into science class" to "allow religious dogma to masquerade as scientific knowledge in a science class".