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