that ID or Creatioism is not to be taught in public school science classrooms as it is not science. In my view that is the right decision.
No doubt there will be an appeal of some sort, but based on what I wonder? New evidence? I look forward to that.
On the matter of new "evidence" check out a recent Doonesbury at this site:
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/db/2005/12/18/index.html
I hope that this ruling does not extend to discussion of the matter in history or philosophy classes. Just because an idea is whacky does not mean idt should not be discussed. In fact if the idea is believed by a large number of people at some time in history it certainly should be discussed and dissected. There are plenty of examples of such things. Homeopathy is one, perhaps Malthusianism another. Likewise Marxism.