Let’s assume that. Then the decision should only touch on whether or not it’s got some hint, some whiff of religion. If it does, it’s out. No need for a judge to rule on it in terms of science. And yet he felt he had to.

(Remember President Thomas Jefferson’s admonitions to keep a strict separation between church and state matters.)

Please understand your history before commenting on it. The Danbury Baptists were asking a specific question and Jefferson was giving a specific answer. The Baptists were concerned specifically about the government interfering in church matters. Jefferson was assuring them it wouldn’t. Too many people read the “separation” clause out of context. If it means what you say it means, then the first act of Congress, to open in prayer, goes against the very first amendment. I have a feeling that the guys who wrote the Constitution had a better idea of what it means than today’s ACLU.

(Wasn’t it Jesus who warned us to allow that which is Caesar’s to be kept separate from the rest, i.e. religion?)

Please understand religion before commenting on it. The question posed to Jesus was whether someone should pay their taxes. Jesus’ answer was simple acknowledgment of both forms of authority; man’s and God’s. It has absolutely nothing to do with church-state separation.

Just wanted to note one thing from your response to Casey:

If I go from the root of a bush to the furthest leaves, every time I reach a branching, I take one branch or another.

But that choice itself is a random selection. So the effect is cumulative, random changes. If you want to consider it non-random, then you need to show who’s making the choice, which one might think sounds a bit like ID.

One of the most astounding confirmations of Darwinian evolution is in the knowledge we now have in genetics, in embryology, in microbiology, etc. Darwin got it right without the substantiating information we now have with newer technology. That’s what good science does. Make predictions which then can be proven or disproved. And Evolution gets a resounding A+ on alternative proffs from many different areas of science. It’s true whether it agrees with Genesis or not.

As for Evolution as a random process, it is only a straw man argument you have, that is a weak idea of what Evolution is which you can then try to show is wrong.

The idea of Evolution by Natural Selection is a decidedly NON_RANDOM process. Mutations are random, but even there, there are only a very limited number of amino acids to be shuffled about. BUT NATURAL SELECTION IS A CUMULATIVE NON-RANDOM PROCESS.

If I go from the root of a bush to the furthest leaves, every time I reach a branching, I take one branch or another. ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES FROM THE BRANCH NOT TAKEN ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE EQUATION. As we branch out we repeatedly make separations, each time eliminating the other possibilities that go with the branch not taken. The effect is cumulative, not random. Scientists don’t talk about Evolution as random, because we know it is not. Creationists talk about Evolution as random as a “straw-man” argument which makes it seem impossible. It’s not random, and it’s not impossible.

And the fossil record is loaded with species after species, phyla and families of creatures and plants with clear transitional structures from fish to land creatures, from land mammals to Whales with residual lower limb bones without feet or legs.

It’s cherry picking that allows one to ignore the reality of Evolution and grasp at tiny cracks. Evolution is not a belief, it’s a conclusion based upon overwhelming scientific information from many different areas of science, independent of each other. Religion is a belief, not needing documentation, but science and specifically Evolutionary biology is a well founded science conclusion.

All this being said, scientists wouldn’t conclude that Intelligent Design is false. It’s untestable by science, so it’s not a science issue. It may be true or it may be false. But either way, Evolution is real, and it’s well tested knowledge.

If it’s religion, then it doesn’t belong in a science class. (Remember President Thomas Jefferson’s admonitions to keep a strict separation between church and state matters.) (Wasn’t it Jesus who warned us to allow that which is Caesar’s to be kept separate from the rest, i.e. religion?)

If it is being tauted as science than a discussion of ID as science is legitimate and necessary, logically and especially legally. Jones couldn’t make a decision without reviewing whether or not ID was science or “just” religion. And note, a part of the trial clearly showed that ID was nothing but Creationist ideas in sheep’s clothing, i.e. literal interpretations of the bible, presented as science.

Thanks for the pointer.  I read the summary on Wikipedia and more of the article as well.  Indeed, Judge Jones seemed to pass judgment against ID as a scientific theory.  I guess now science is something that is decided by the judicial branch of government rather that, y’know, scientists.  Had he simply passed judgment on the constitutionality or legality of it, that would’ve been one thing.  But he really overstepped his bounds with some of those statements.  One wonders if, regardless of his background, he had some predisposition towards his ruling long before the trial, given the vehement wording of his non-judicial opinions.

this isn’t a political debate.

If you stil want to get religon into our classrooms, read the judge’s conclusion about Intelligent Design as science, from the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. A bush appointed, republican judge, lsitening the both sides of the arguement about getting Intelligent design in biology classrooms, who had a chance to listen for weeks to both sides with cross examination, and the need to substanciate opinions, came to a resounding rejection of Intelligent Design as science.
Read it before you make a decision. Read all 139 pages of Judge jones’ opinon, not a review of it.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.
A relatively short version is in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision