Well, for me it really has NOW, to do with "the Lemon Test" and after hearing what our now Chief Justice had to say about it awhile back I STILL think it was about that.
But look, NO, I do not think it was "creation science" per say but "Biblical Creationism" that emerges BETWEEN creation science and scientific creationism. After Ruse completed his book "on design" it was clear he would *never* come **********to********notice this difference that is held to/*******for********* an average reader who may have been informed by NUMBERS' presentation in "The Creationist" pre and post "revival."
As to "law" it seems to me rather that if a Legislature simply purports TO ADD information to a curriculum then unless there is something wrong and illegal "with information", that information, then there should be no reason to keep that information out.
I think EvC value adds to BOTH creationism and Evolutionist thought so if EVC were what the Lousiana Legislature added then I can see little law against it. We have a thread discussing if it might not be a good thing for students to have access to EVC. Even Will Provine thinks it is important to get "everything" out on the table etc and he holds NO purpose for any final cause whatever.
I will be very surprised if the outcomes of ICR's GENE project and the baramin definitions of hybrid connotations on kind is not even going to be a degree better in the decades to come, so no, I do not think this was a "deception." Instead as an evolutionary thinker, I ALLWAYS have to query my own mind if some other species "is not" being deceptive genetically.
I think it is all the other way, sorry.
I feel that scientific creationism can be noticed AFTER the distinction of theistic and progressive creationism is revealed but that creation science may apply in the amalgam.
Edited by Brad McFall, : correcting sloppy typing that I thought was immaterial