INTELLIGENT DESIGN - UNCONSTITUTIONAL -I'm sooo shocked!!

Well maybe I'm not as shocked as I would lead you to believe, but seriously I am gravely disturbed about the ramifications this decision will have on the free exchange of ideas and opinions, religious beliefs and convictions, notwithstanding.

As I wrote in my last posting, the statement regarding Intelligent Design (ID) that is posted on the Dover Area School District website, is so neutral in its content, I find this whole controversy unfathomable.

Although I have philosophical problems with ID in that it is as much a theory as Evolution, it nevertheless balances the playing field and presents a differing view on the origin of life. But let's take a look at what is causing all this controversy.

The Dover School District statement reads in part:

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."

"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The book Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves."

Intelligent Design is defined as follows: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

These statements are both content neutral and fairly basic in their explanations,in fact there is no mention of either God or creation, so I suspect the $64,000 question is--How does Intelligent Design violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The answer is very simple--IT DOESN'T!

From where I sit, I don't see what the fuss is about, but leave it to the ACLU to take something that is fairly basic and turn it into some kind of religious conspiracy.

This decision effects more that one's expression of religion, it cuts at the very heart of freedom of speech, for in the final analysis we only prosper and grow as a society if we have an open and unrestricted debate on the issues of our day.