Anonymous: So much for the notion that ID supporters like Mr. Reppert do not wish to establish a theocracy in this country.
1) I do not consider myself an ID supporter, or rather, my support for ID is very limited. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I do not think that the previous Dover school board was justified in the way in which they attempted to bring ID into their curriculum. Criticizing arguments against ID is not sufficient to make one an ID supporter.
2) Saying that an argument along a certain line might be made is different from saying that I think the argument is a good one. The doctrine of "original intent" is a very tricky one. It is the doctrine by which political conservatives hope to reverse a number of judicial precedents, such are Roe v. Wade, but it's highly controversial and I have doubts about it. Further, I would vehemently oppose an official state religion in the state of Arizona or anywhere else for that matter. I do think that questions about the Lemon test might be made from the standpoint of original intent; I wonder whether jurists who are operating by that prinicple would endorse it. However the Lemon test is a currently accepted judicial interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, not the doctrine itself.
I'm reasonably sure that the founders intended were concerned about the establishment of a revealed religion, like the established Church of England or the Congregationalists in Massachusetts Bay Colony, who horsewhipped someone in the town square for advocating believer's baptism and hanged a few Quakers. A theocracy, I take it, would require revelation as the foundation for law. In the 18th century there was typically a distinction made between natural religion and revealed religion. A good deal of the argumentation in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, for example is designed to show that the "natural religion" established by the design argument doesn't establish much of God even if it does establish the existence of one. So one could argue, on that basis, that the attempt to defend "natural religion" through intelligent design does not in any way establish the kind of religion the founders didn't want established.
I'm not at all sure about the above line of thought.
The comment above reflects a "Whose side are you on, you're either for us or against us, anyone who criticizes criticisms of ID must be trying to establish religion" attitude which is a mirror image of the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists.