This is an interesting link that discusses some of the Supreme Court's decisions on what is and is not religion - http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

The bias is obviously one I agree with, but the author raises some interesting points that might warrant further discussion.

Hrm. The man says he's a philosopher. He says ID is like the ideas of Aristotle. Yet, he can't tell the difference between what is modern Science and what is Philosophy. So, what I'm getting is that if this man is an "eminent" philosopher, then philosophy is in BIG trouble.

He is a philosopher, having earned a PhD from a respectable department; and he may be, in some circles & for some reasons, distinguished; he is not, however, distinguished qua philosopher.

"...he is not, however, distinguished qua philosopher."

You don't know that - just because you disagree with him doesn't mean that he isn't distinguished as a philosopher.

Essentially he admits it's a religious concept, not a scientific one. The issue is not that it can't be discussed in a "neutral" manner (though doing such wouldn't impress those who advocate it) but that it's not topical for the science class. Religion isn't a topic for science class any more than the conjugation of French verbs. In terms of what the ID debate actually represents, John Derbyshire at NRO has been unusually accurate.

Put a sock in it, lc. There are a great many philosophers whom I respect as eminent, though I disagree with them profoundly. (Alvin Platinga would be a good example here.) I say that Reynolds is a non-eminent philosopher, because he has published no articles in the major philosophical journals; written no books that are discussed or engaged by the profession at large; delivered no major addresses to the APA or other key philosophical conferences. (A few group-session APA talks do not philosophical eminence make; if it did, then about every third grad student in philosophy would count as eminent.)

As is far too typical, lc, you have spouted off without having even the first clue as to what you're talking about.

I guess I don't get your perspective here, Joshua. Are you saying that the undisputed teaching of a "purposeless, blind, random process" in bringing about all life does belong in a science class?

That's what Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, and the fact that such an assertion isn't empirical or provable through science has never affected its ability to be taught in "science" class.

Attention: the Theory of Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life.

Correct, it just assumes the origin of life was...other life. It's turtles all the way down!

In my public school education, the big bang theory was taught in the same class that evolution was, it is the modern theory afterall: big bang started it all out, then evolution, via mutation and natural selection, led to us nice humans. This is the reason why both are presented in the same science class and nothing else is, its the best science has to explain it all. And its best explanations for the origin of life, the big bang, is crap. So stop teaching the big bang BS -- science is no closer to the origin of life than history is -- and allow the intelligent criticisms of evolution, of which ID theory is not, to be taught as well.

Seems to me the whole reason alot of people have trouble pinning down what science is is because of the deplorable state of science education in our public schools. The last thing science education should be is indoctrination, which is what teaching the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, side-by-side without criticisms, amounts to.

Good Grief, JoPa; where did you attend public school? The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with the origins of life (abiogenesis) or with the diversification and speciation of life (the Theory of Evolution), except in the sense that one does have to have a universe before there can be life. If your school was in fact "teaching the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, side-by-side", then the state of science education at that school was deplorable. I wonder, though, if your representation of the what and the how of your education, however many years ago that might have been, is accurate.
The big bang is "crap"? Are you unaware of the sizable body of evidence-not conjecture or speculation, but objective, empirical data, supporting this theory?
What "intelligent criticisms" of evolution? you seem to recognize the fact that ID (and it is NOT a theory, as that word is defined by science) doesn't qualify, so what do you have to offer?