I think the only thing the defense needs to do is to establish the fact that broaching the subject of ID [which is all Dover did] serves a secular purpose via the Lemon Law. Which, insofar as ID representing just an alternative to the received wisdom of Darwin, does. If ID supplanted Darwin, it would be a different issue.
The problem for the plaintiffs [ACLU et al] is going to be in establishing ID as a religion or religious instruction. The only way they can do that is by mischaracterizing ID as religion, when all ID really is, is an attempt to use some garden variety tools of science [probability and information sciences for ex.] to see if design in biology is real, in the sense that it is indicative of a prior intelligence; or, whether design just apparent in the sense that things only appear to be designed.
Look for the ACLU lawyers to try and get Behe to mention GOD as much as possible.
It’s all they have, really. And if the defense can keep ID from being mischaracterized as warmed-over biblical creationism, then ID is going to be immune from ‘the establishment argument’ and the issue will be decided on the local level by local school boards…where such issues should always be decided.
Omar.
And no matter how hard they try to stuff Darwinism down students' throats, the vast majority still won't buy it. I think all this grandstanding on both sides is a great waste of time and money. Most of us know God created the heavens and earth and all that is in them.