Like all good political arguments, the debate over creationism has evolved.

There's even a new name for it: "intelligent design."

It's a great name for an interior decorator's shop, but not much for a revised, born-again idea posing as scientific fact.

A federal district judge said as much in the most recent court challenge last month that tried to force the idea into a public school curriculum. But the judge saw through it, calling "intelligent design" a "religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism."

To the judge's decision, we say, "Amen."

The concept of "intelligent design" suggests that the complexities of life couldn't possibly come together so randomly, and that an "intelligent designer" had to have a hand in things.

Thankfully, the case of parents vs. a school district in Dover, Pa. didn't become another Scopes Monkey Trial. Two weeks after the judge's ruling, the district quietly rescinded its policy that allows for the teaching of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in high school biology.

In Hawai'i, this is thankfully not an issue after the state school board took a look at the matter and concluded correctly that this is not a topic that belongs in public school science classes.

It's fine to discuss creationism, by any name. But it belongs in a history, religion or philosophy class, not in a biology or science class.

There's no doubt that faith and religion are important to many of us.

But faith and fact should be kept separate, especially when it comes to creationism and its latest incarnation, "intelligent design."