Hmm ... the pivotal question of Dover wasn't about whether separation of Church and State should be respected (nobody questioned that), but whether Intelligent Design was religion and thus fell under that principle. And it was shown conclusively that it was (by being, in essence, a simple rebranding of vanilla Creationism).
[So anybody willing to argue that the 'miscarriage of the law' that occurred in Dover was discrimination against religious alternatives ... would be entirely missing the point.]
What worries me about the decision, is that by pivoting on the Separation question, the decision was not about whether ID was "not science", but whether it "was religion." Had the iD advocates on the school board and the Pandas publishers not been so completely inept, what might have happened? Had they not had their private religious motives so easy to document, had they not had their "cdesign proponentsists" moments, had Michael Behe been a little quicker on his feet on the witness stand ... could they have successfully presented their front of ID being a *secular* concept?
And if so, would ID and Pandas and People now be the law of the land (or at least Penn).
It may be that the the answer is that it doesn't matter. ID cannot help but be revealed to be religion because it IS religion. The ID advocates in Dover just made it really easy.
But is the Separation principle enough to keep bad ideas from being promoted as "education"?
To illustrate what I'm talking about, imagine a separate trial where Holocaust denial is being proposed as an "alternative" to the mainstream History curriculum, despite the strong objections of Historians. Imagine that this is done under the banner of Free Speech, and "academic freedom", and "letting students make up their own mind." Since Holocaust denial would not be subject to the same Separation of Church and State prohibitions, what would be the governing legal principle?
I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this matter.
>"The history curriculum should be dictated by the consensus of the experts (there are definable criteria for why makes a credible expert on a given topic)"
I agree, of course.
But my question is what is the *legal* or *Constitutional* principle that supports this?