Lonest@r wrote:

“Don't know Ben Stein's full position, as I just recently heard about it, but I did hear on an interview that he is not claiming to be right, just wants all the facts, theories, and ideas to all be equally represented.”

Some of us older dawgs recognize this for what it is; bait and switch. A few decades ago, the goal was to forbid teaching evolution (or anything that contradicted their particular beliefs). After losing that battle, the goal was ‘equal time’. Losing again, the goal became attempting to change the very definition of science. Finally, creationism was repackaged and promoted as I.D.

The problem is that I.D. is not science. This is an established fact both academically and legally. The Overton ruling constrains and defines what may be called ‘science’ and what must be called ‘religion’:

“Sec 4-c

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Sec 4-c

“While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

Sec 4-d

“The conclusion that creation science has no scientific merit or educational value as science has legal significance in light of the Court's previous conclusion that creation science has, as one major effect, the advancement of religion. The second part of the three-pronged test for establishment reaches only those statutes as having their primary effect the advancement of religion. Secondary effects which advance religion are not constitutionally fatal. Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion. The Act therefore fails both the first and second portions of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

Later, the Jones ruling (the Dover case) made it final:

“Pg 132

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective.

Defendants previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext to the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment clause.

Pg 133

To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of ID Policy is the advancement of religion.

Pg 136-137

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Pg 137

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.

Pg 138

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

The only controversy remaining is that this tattered dead horse is dragged into the public spotlight yet again.