Martin said, "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly
Christian, but it is theistic."
Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a
hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is
not well disguised.
"Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation," said
Martin. "Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't
often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,"
But focussing on that ignores other great quotes, like this:
Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."Or this:
While Martin was unable to provide examples of scientific facts that back up Intelligent Design Theory, she did explain that ID believes in "microevolution," but not "macroevolution."
"Why shouldn't theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be
taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child
wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them," said Martin. "All children
believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to
church believe in God."
When and if the Board approves the minority report, this is the language that will get it struck down. She's a zealot, and crossed well-established constitutional boundaries at least twice in the interview.
Here's the problem: winning those lawsuits won't win us friends. There are too many conservatives in Kansas, too many voters who sympathize with this sort of Reconstructionist language. Fighting this as a separation of church and state issue will alienate that constituency. This has to be a separation of church and science issue. Religion has a pretty poor record for deciding what science is good or bad.
I propose that someone with graphix skillz produce a bumper sticker saying, "Leave Galileo alone already." Maybe a smaller tagline underneath, "Mixing science and religion is bad for our health."