I see. So you think it fit to discuss the merits of a court case, but inappropriate to discuss the merits of the questions at issue in the court case? That's an interesting notion.
Whether I would mind it or not has nothing to do with whether I believe it would be unconstitutional to do so... which, as a matter of fact, I do not.
Than I must insist on disagreeing with you vehemently, since, in fact, to single out biology, and ignore the more substantial difficulties in the basic assumptions of physics and astronomy, for example, at the behest of non-scientists is a three-monkeys approach to judicial reasoning. There is no profound and obvious reason why biology should get this special treatment, except for the fact that biology, as she is currently writ, appears to creationists to fly in the face of the bible.
Like the people embroiled in these recent court cases, you are trying to make this seem like a reasonable position by ignoring the elephant in the room. If I started burning crosses on black people's lawns, but kept insisting it was an ancient druid rite, and it was just the dern luck of the draw that I chose black people's lawns, I'd be making a similar argument.
ID, whatever its merits, is not remotely science at this time. Should it become science, then it will be because scientists are thinking and experimenting with it. Until then, science textbooks, being as they are about what scientists think, should reflect what scientists think--even on their spines, and no significant number of scientists remotely think that any physics, chemistry or geology theory is better established than evolutionary theory.
Given that one understands that, the thin veil of objectivity is ripped away from the ID judicial movement, (to the point of perjury in the Dover case, and open admission in the case of the Wedge document) and it is revealed for what it is--a stealth attack by christian creationists to make room for teaching their religeous doctrines in the classrooms of public schools. There is vastly insufficient sensible motivation for it otherwise.
It would be an interesting (and foolish) notion if that's what I was saying. But it's not. Could you or anybody please explain how these stickers constitute an "establishment of religion"? Heck, I read the lower court's opinion and I still don't get it. As best as I can tell, the judge ruled that if religious people like something, it's unconstitutional.
There is no profound and obvious reason why biology should get this special treatment
"Congress shall make no law giving one science special treatment" doesn't seem to be in my copy of the Constitution. Is it outdated or something? Was there a misprint?
Given that one understands that, the thin veil of objectivity is ripped away from the ID judicial movement ... and it is revealed for what it is--a stealth attack by christian creationists to make room for teaching their religeous doctrines in the classrooms of public schools.
Wow, cool, I'm a christian! Wait 'til I tell my rabbi, he'll be quite surprised.
When the Christians start insisting on having their religious doctrines in the classrooms of public schools, you can raise First Amendment objections... and I'll be standing right next to you. But not before.