[js1138]

Here's the offending passage:

I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.

I should have said "some conservatives."

I am mocking those who accept forensic science when it is convenient and deny it when it is inconvenient.

There is no virtue in accepting DNA evidence when a person's life is on the line and saying it's all a matter of interpretation when the debate is academic.

[grey_whiskers]

It depends on the degree of certainty in the results; the ability (in principle) to do immediate, tangible tests of the results; and what it is *about* the DNA which is being shown.

Cheers!