I’m essentially suggesting that for Judge Dover to say that “ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations” that he is in effect saying the opposite of what you are saying above, specifically “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 or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.”

In fact, he appears to be restricting the teaching of anything that cannot be proven or explained by natural laws, including the origin of matter in the Big Bang theory (more at my blog entry on this in particular). I’m not a lawyer, so I could be misunderstanding this, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks!