When ever have gas bags, bunko artists, or tenured professors urged us to look behind THEIR curtain?

"unconstitutional endorsement of religion"

It didn't seem to support or endorse religion (granted I am a poor reader, perhaps it was in between the lines, I never get those hidden messages)

I wonder if a similiar message casting doubt on global warming would also be an "endorsement of religion" and thrown out el pronto. We don't won't to give the little ones a confused message.

Interesting, even bizarre logic by the judge. Would not the teaching of evolution itself, in the judge's words, "[tell] some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders?"

Surely indeed any curriculum choice by a school district does that. Choices about what to teach in history, literature, whatever. It's hard to see how any public school system is Constitutional under this ruling.

What follows is a hard teaching: The ruling flawed just because it is a renunciation of reason and objective truth. The textbook warning notice is not objectionable by any construction of its words, but only as a matter of "higher truth." Words do not matter; truth does not matter: what counts is the motive of the author of a statement.

Marxist thinking. Where did I put that S&W Bodyguard?

While I'm of the view that there is no evidence for creationism and certainly not for the Bible story, either of them, the judge absolutely over-stepped his bounds here. It is correct to state the evolution is a theory, certainly our versions of it are theories. Moreover, by stating something is not fact, one is not stating that some unstated matter somehow is a fact.

In America, it seems that once one is given black robes and a gavel, one acquires supernatural powers like the ability to divine hidden messages. This is the stuff of comic books not real life and judges like this guy should be bounced out on their keisters at the earliest opportunity.

Oh, come off it. ID is just creationism for cowards.

There is no -- none, nada, not any -- alternative explanation for the variety of life that meets scientific standards.

You may not like it, but it's religion and you should teach it in Sunday school. Not in science class.

Harry,

If either you or I were on the school board, we would both oppose putting the sticker on the textbook. However, isn't that decision one for the school board and not for the judiciary? If the public sees the idea as dopey, shouldn't they get the last word, not some clown in a robe?