Replies

"Whether a student accepts the Board’s invitation to explore Pandas, and reads a creationist text, or follows the Board’s other suggestion and discusses “Origins of Life” with family members, that objective student can reasonably infer that the District’s favored view is a religious one, and that the District is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion. Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,” thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat."

You evidently haven't gotten the memo: Evolution does not cover the origin of life.

Also, note: ID is not science. ID's biggest proponents even said so on the stand in Dover. Why, pray-tell, would you find it necessary to bring up something not science and place it on an equal footing with science in a science class?

Wow, all the creationists are quoting that same one passage from the 139-page decision, and bolding the same wrong phrase. Which creationist website are you all parroting from?

Here's the key phrase you should really be bolding:

to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat

The "remind schoolchildren" part isn't a problem, and the judge (and Constitution)) wouldn't have any problem with it if that had been all the "disclaimer" was. However, what you're "forgetting" is the rest of the testimony and decision, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the clear intent and result of the "disclaimer" and "ID textbook" was, and I quote, "to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat". *That* is the part you should boldface when you quote that passage, because it's the key phrase, the one that makes the "disclaimer" unconstitutional. Read the whole decision (instead of the creationist websites and their spin) if you're still unclear.