Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?
"Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?"
1) That is not what ID claims to be.
2) Students in a government school should not be subjected to religious instruction, which ID is.
3) Nobody here is saying that ID/creationist proponents can't do as much *research* as they want, nor that they can't write articles, books, make speeches, whatever, to try to persuade people that ID/creationism is correct. The line is drawn when they want to use tax dollars to teach their religious based claim to students.