So then, let's follow that line of logic ... if one can't present a legal case well, then one can not publish a science book, nor teach a science class. Do I have that right?
Your childish attempts to "trap" people into some sort of internally inconsistent position is quite reminiscent of all of DU right after Buckhead exposed Dan Rather.
The point is (to me, but maybe the original poster was being sarcastic) that even by legal standards ID falls -- so it MUST fall by scientific standards.
Actually, my statement was to point out that if you can't even get the most elementary legal position right, with someone who purports to be an attorney as your director and source, how can you get the difficult scientific stuff right? Maybe DI's scientists are much more intelligent than their attorneys? But in the legal world, juries are instructed that, if a witness is lying about one thing, the jury is entitled to disregard their entire testimony. Based on the DI's complete misrepresentation of the the trial and subsequent events and the previous misrepresentations of science, I disbelieve everything they say. They will say anything to promote their agenda.
Oh, and please remember that I am only talking about the POST-trial comments, papers and the huge scientific/atheistic conspiracy (/sarc) that the DI believes in. They called for evolutionists to be placed under oath and placed in front of a jury. When it actually happened and they were about to be placed under the gun, they ran for the hills and left Dover to a big legal bill.