Philip Thrift wrote:

>I said:
>** The same reasoning [made in the opinion for Creation Science]
>=A0=A0=A0should 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.

Then we have to question *your* reasoning.  If ID is different from
Creatio=
n Science (as it is) then how can the "same reasoning" concerning
Creation =
Science be applied to ID?  In the case of Creation Science the
religious vi=
ewpoint being promoted is clearly identifiable: the Judeo-Christian
religio=
ns.  The Creation Science agenda of reconciling science and the Bible
makes=
 this clear.

What religious viewpoint does ID promote?  How is it a "cover"?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]