On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:34:17 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >PS In addition, you seriously misrepresented the situation regarding the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It concerns Creation Science and *not* ID, where the Court's understanding of Creation Science is the explicit attempt to give evidence for a Biblical account of origins. This has nothing to do with ID. I said: ** The same reasoning [made in the opinion for Creation Science] should apply here to ID. ** So I think that, if a State promoted the inclusion of ID in science education, it would (and should) be ruled unconstitutional. (I am not aware of a case yet, or a State law to challenge.) I think the challengers to such a law would prevail in showing that ID is a cover for promoting a religious viewpoint in science. Philip Thrift http://www.paleofitness.com