Defense attorneys in the case over intelligent design didn't want Barbara Forrest to testify.Some links to what they're talking about:They repeatedly tried to keep the co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" off the stand or to undermine her testimony in U.S. Middle District Court on Wednesday.
[snip]
Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, says the wedge strategy is a long-term plan to replace materialism with Christian convictions. She has tracked what she calls the intelligent design movement for years to show its roots in creation science, according to testimony.
The institute, in a document called "The Wedge Document: So What?" says it does not support theocracy, is not attacking science and does not have a secret plan to influence science and culture.
From original version "Of Panda's and People": "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
After the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the concept of creation science as legitimate science: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"
I see no reason to believe the word of anyone claiming that ID is not Genesis based creationism.
From the article you posted: "During cross examination, Thompson went after her views on religion, which plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild said went too far."
If ID isn't about religion, why would the defense go after her views on religion? It makes me wonder if these folks ever actually listen to what they themselves are saying.