In the U.S. one of the driving forces is the need to pretend to be scientific. If they can get away with that then they can get their sectarion religious beliefs into science lessons. Yes, it's a pretty dishonest tactic but dishonesty doesn't seem to be something they're concerned about.
So the U.S. got "Creation Science". Pretty much as soon as that had flopped "ID" got invented as a replacement with much the same aim in mind. Of course they had to throw out stuff that was too obviously Bible-based (like the Young Earth) which didn't sit will with many YECs but even some YECs backed the tactic.
quote: Paulk sees a dishonesty in the movement of creationism overall but I see a honesty.
It's not just my opinins. Judges have agreed when the matter came to trial.
Here's some quotes from Judge Overton's deciison in the Arkansas case.
Ellwanger's correspondence on the subject shows an awareness that Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact
The unusual circumstances surrounding the passage of Act 590, as well as the substantive law of the First Amendment warrant an inquiry into the stated legislative purposes. The author of the Act has publicly proclaimed the sectarian purpose of the proposal. The Arkansas residents who sought legislative sponsorship of the bill did so for a purely sectarian purpose. These circumstances alone may not be particularly persuasive, but when considered with the publicly announced motives of the legislative sponsor made contemporaneously with the legislative process; the lack of any legislative investigation, debate or consultation with any educators or scientists; the unprecedented intrusion in school curriculum (16); and official history of the State of Arkansas on the subject, it is obvious that the statement of purpose has little, if any, support in fact. The State failed to produce any evidence which would warrant an inference or conclusion that at any point in the process anyone considered the legitimate educational value of the Act. It was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula. The only inference which can be drawn from these circumstances is that the Act was passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.
And of the attempts to claim that the views taught were not specifically Fundamentalist Christian beliefs:
The evidence fully answers these arguments. The idea of 4(a)(1) are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story of creation
Every time someone tries to get creationism into schools - and that incudes ID - they deny the religious aspects. Even when the religious aspect is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to examine the evidence. Is that honest ?