Victories against the inclusion of the teaching of "intelligent design" in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Utah are an encouraging turn of events. In spite of the vigorous pursuit of the introduction of this 'creationism in a lab coat' and its artificial 'controversy' into public schools, people and the courts are seeing it for what it is, and are also recognizing its newest iteration: "Critical Analysis".

But it is probably going to be the sheer expense of defending it in court that will help keep it out of public schools, according to an article in the York Dispatch:

If Dover's model of a divided community didn't discourage people who want to test the science behind intelligent design, the legal bill might.

Some involved in the Dover Area School District intelligent design debate said the school's $1 million legal bill will deter copycats who want to push the movement into science classes, but others said the movement will continue to thrive.

Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education, closely followed the federal civil suit filed against the former school board after it passed a policy to include intelligent design in science classes. His group consulted, at no charge, for the parents who filed the lawsuit.

He said school district attorneys pay close attention to numbers like "$1 million," and would likely advise school boards against fighting for intelligent design in court.

But that might not stop some school boards, he said.

*

Bill should be more: Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, worked on the Dover parents' case.

"I don't know whether $1 million in legal fees is enough to deter a board determined to violate the Constitution," he said.

He said Dover's bill should have been more than $2 million, but attorneys cut the district a break because residents were "willing to clean (their) own house" by voting the former school board out of office.

"Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million," he said.

"I think $2 million is a lot to explain to taxpayers for a lawsuit that should never be fought," he said.

Taxpayers don't like footing bills like that. And religious proponents don't like dipping into their war chests to fight losing battles. They've long utilized huge corps of well paid lawyers and consultants to wage their war against the separation of church and state, and used the intimidation factor of their huge coffers to bully their way into power. Draining their coffers will effectively drain their power. To defeat them, we must make it too expensive for them to advance their causes and maintain power.