I don't think that court case was rightly decided, or at least not for the reasons that was given in the decision. If "the court said it, I believe it, that settles it" was a good argument form, then we could establish that black slaves are really the property of their owners because Dred Scott v. Sandford said that they were.
But now we
get to something I really don't get. Edwards v. Aguillard said that you
couldn't teach creationism in public school, since this made reference
to the doctrines of a specific religion.
Supreme Court held that the Act is facially invalid as violative of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear
secular purpose (first test of the above Lemon test), since (a)the Act
does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic
freedom." and (b) the Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing
the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.
They also said:
do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific
critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a
variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to
schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of
enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
suppose someone took what was originally a creationist textbook, used
all the same arguments, but deleted the implication that a supernatural
being was responsible. This is some dastardly subterfuge?
in fact the people who were developing this were actually creationists,
and even young earth creationists. Suppose, further, they hoped that by
making the case for a designer, they hoped that they could support
religious belief. Couldn't they still say that they were doing what the
court says was allowable.
If the court says "You can't do A, but
you can do B," you are still doing B and not A even if you wanted to do
A, or even if people concluding A was what you hope they would do if
you do B, the fact is you ARE doing B and not A.
So they changed the words of the book to satisfy the ruling. Isn't that what you're supposed to do???
it is just plain false to say that advocates of ID are advocates of
creationism, if creationism is meant to be something like YEC and flood
geology. Behe, for example, affirms common ancestry, something that is
an absolute no-no amongst creationists, who will label you an
evolutionist if you accept it.