Replies

"I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved."

The only evidence going for it is the theological claim that an intelligent designer (code name for God) exists. Also, it's the gay jeans argument.

" I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context."

A government school is not a public forum.

"Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law."

I argue for no such thing. I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools. ID is a theological claim. People are perfectly free to do any research they want in it(though ID'ers don't actually do research about the designer). They can try to persuade anybody they wish that their theological claim is correct. Just not with a captive audience in a government school.

The only evidence going for it is the theological claim . . .

Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims. What makes you think such things are inherently "religious?" Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

A government school is not a public forum.

I said public "context." Public schools are paid for by people from all walks of life. The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis. Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports.

I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools.

Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?" You must believe people to be weak-minded. Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas. You are not arguing for free inquiry, but against it. You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house. Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."