Full of It

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

This is just good old-fashioned stupidity dandied up in a black robe. Exactly what religion was espoused, here? The Religion of Possibilities? Intelligent Design advocates aren't even in synch on Who or What created the universe. Some believe in the God of the Bible; some believe highly advanced aliens got tired of counting quasars one day and fashioned the earth and its inhabitants like Da Vinci splashing paint across the canvas. The point is, if ID involves the promotion of religion, could someone be so bold as to explain which one? How rabidly secular, and how typically representative of what passes for atheist "tolerance." Even the mere conjecture of God's existence is now paramount to a theocratic coup.

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

As opposed to Darwinistic evolutionists, who are utterly dispassionate and objective in their beliefs. Who's he kidding?

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

And the basis of its unconstitutionality is a non-existent clause in the aforementioned document. If James Madison scrabbles out of his grave, lurches down to the Library of Congress with a fine-toothed comb and a magnifying glass, even he will have no luck locating the "separation of church and state," concept in the Constitution. A declaration of love and loyalty to King John, sealed with a kiss in the Magna Carta, is of greater likelihood.

Said the judge: "It is 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."

Oh, yes, how dare they express religiosity in public, those witch-burning, Bible-thumping, freedom-stomping miscreants!

The real purpose of ID is the offering of an alternative to Darwinian dogma. I don't necessarily subscribe to specific intelligent design theories, but I appreciate what they're trying to do.

I'm a hard-core creationist. I wonder what Judge Clueless would think of me?

This judge's citation of the Constitution as the foundation of his argument is laughter-fit inducing. What a mockery of everything our Founders held dear. Not only is he uninformed, but he's proud and brazen in his ignorance. We've reached a pretty low state, when judges cannot decipher the simple language of the Constitution, while simultaneously--perhaps magically--finding whole concepts and clauses which are as phony as a North Korean's smile.

We've come a long way down, since 1776.

Not much left to do, but flush.