[D Rider]

In reaching this decision, he found that intelligent design is not "science" because its ideas can't be either verified or falsified through normal scientific methods.

Neither can Evolution. At least they can still teach Chemistry and Physics. Well, most physics anyway.

[annalex]

I wish Chuck Colson all the best, but he is naive. The root of the problem is that science is a client of big government, and so is education. But the government has a vested interest in preventing the raising of a moral self-sufficient generation, -- because a moral self-sufficient generation will easily discard 90% of the government as innecessary waste. The government (not any particular adnministration, but the government as a system) correctly identifies that Intelligent Design is vaguely connected to a religious outlook, and that is sufficient to anathemize ID in public schools. The science will always provide the government with the necessary "scientific" argumentation. To think that the scientific community en masse will gather under the banner of "science compared to science" is to expect a pig to walk away from the trough, althouigh individual scientists perhaps might, to a great detriment to their careers.

[onedoug]

Just allow students to wonder at the bafflement of the Universe and let it take its course.

Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God

[MHalblaub]

"By way of anticipating the reaction to the ruling, Jones emphasized that "he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed . . . " And this is the key: In Kansas and other jurisdictions, the teaching is permitted, not mandated. Always seek an open forum, so all sides can be discussed, and science compared to science."

This is a typical creationist citing/lying technique.
First if you put something between quotation marks you have to cite and identify your alterations.

The correct statement is:
"Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
(p. 137, Case No. 04cv2688 "Memorandum Opinion")

or finally
"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant...

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs..."
(p. 139, Case No. 04cv2688 "Memorandum Opinion")

The key of the judgment is ID is not scientific therefore keep it out of science classes.