Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
You'll have to take up your disagreement with ID's proponents, then - that's exactly what it is, by their own admission.
Additionally, in this very case the school board members were caught admitting that in bringing ID into the science class, they were specifically intending to introduce "creationism" and "Christianity."
The text book that the board wanted to direct students to was a Creation Science textbook with the words "creation science" cut out and replaced with the words "intelligent design."
I'll agree that not everybody who wants ID in the classroom does so because they're interested in pushing "a species of Christian creationism." But you cannot deny that the major players certainly are, the organizations behind it certainly are, and the people involved in this case certainly were.