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.

Love the Doonesbury strip! Glad on the ruling. Hope it holds.
Glenn

The ruling will be challenged in court, but it will be sustained.

Perhaps the Creationists can come up with some novel appeal such as a claim that Freedom of Speech and of Religion in the classroom need not be based on any sort of truth or facts, just on some appeal that is popular with at least more than one student or teacher. In other words: "if it feels good do it". Or in still other words: "no one is better than you, so you all get an A".

 

I was in Sears today walking past the TVs when the news came on and I heard this.  I did a little jig like Hitler did when he visited Paris.  A minor but welcome victory for critical thinking!

 

 

---Al