[Physicist]

This is getting incredibly entertaining, but it's almost going too far. This attempt to inject religious instruction into a public school was so brazen and inept that it may not serve as a general precedent against the teaching of intelligent design.

The court will decide for the plaintiffs, not because of intelligent design per se, but because of the revival tents and venomous snakes that came along with it.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is getting incredibly entertaining, but it's almost going too far. This attempt to inject religious instruction into a public school was so brazen and inept that it may not serve as a general precedent against the teaching of intelligent design.

Yes, good point, unfortunately. That would mean we'd have to fight the battle again, possibly where the other side is better prepared.

On the other hand, the MSM will surely represent it as a defeat for intelligent design, and that may dissuade other districts from trying it.

[Ichneumon]

This attempt to inject religious instruction into a public school was so brazen and inept that it may not serve as a general precedent against the teaching of intelligent design. The court will decide for the plaintiffs, not because of intelligent design per se, but because of the revival tents and venomous snakes that came along with it.

Actually, that's exactly as it should be.

The courts are involved in this case precisely because it is unconstitutional to inject religion into public schools. And that's ultimately what this case is about.

It's *not* unconstitutional to teach kids total nonsense, propaganda, or lies, and no matter how bad an idea that might be, the courts would have no jurisdiction over the matter. If the court decided for the plaintiffs "because of intelligent design per se", they'd be overreaching their authority.