The Court held that the
citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policyand noted that it was
ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.As I've (and I'm sure many others) said, ID is not a scientifically-tested theory, but a religious philosophy. Saying that because things are complicated, they must have been designed by some higher being is as simplistic as noting that God must love puppies or else why would he make them so darn cute?
A theory states that there are repeated actions or reactions, that there is a consistently explainable cause behind those actions or reactions, and that we're going to give you a test to show how it all makes sense. We may some day be wrong, but for now, it's both scientifically plausible and demonstrable.
What annoys me the most is how this argument got into a liberal vs. conservative, or monotheisitic vs. atheistic argument, as if Darwin himself wasn't a great proponent of a Christian god and admitted that neither he nor his theory could answer every question. Taking the Bible literally has caused more problems in this world than can be recounted. It's an inspirational parable people -- it illustrates certain truths and gives us guidance, but to take every word as well, the Gospel, leads you into certain logical, not to mention moral (ever stone someone for wearing cloth of mixed fiber or eating shellfish??) dead-ends.
Like it or not, school is for educating the mind, not necessarily about building strong moral fiber -- believe it or not, that's what parents (and your church/synagogue/mosque/mountaintop) are for.