Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps, God forbid, even Creationism was taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're checking that out, could you keep an eye out for me as to whether "the brain's purpose is to cool the blood" was still taught at that time, as well as the theories taught that dealt with heredity.

There would be no bar to the teaching of creationism if it was the accepted scientific explanation for speciation (and it may well have been at that time). That's a different situation than where the teaching of it would be because of it's standing in certain religions ( as is the current situation).

Don't be concerned if the differences between the situations elude you... perhaps it just me,

luckyme

[siegfriedandroy]

my main point in that post was only that it's dishonest to distort the constitution by trying to pass it off as meaning something it really doesnt. even if evolution were absolutely proven true, that does not in any way transform the original meaning of the document

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
even if evolution were absolutely proven true, that does not in any way transform the original meaning of the document

[/ QUOTE ]

And my point, which is clearly escaping you, is that enforcing government neutrality towards religion clearly coincides with the spirit of the Establishment Clause, even if it is not explicitly the original intent.

[maurile]

Very good article recapping the whole trial here: link.