The Amicus brief is based solely on the credentials of the signers. If you're just looking at their credentials, which the signers obviously want you to do, then yes, I find their credentials lacking. I'm not sure what's so complicated about this.
I understand how desert sand can appear to look like quicksand....
And your motives are as clear as your metaphors obscure.
"And your motives are as clear as your metaphors obscure."
But your motives? No, it serves your side to be deceptive. The fundamental issue here is not what science is, but who gets to decide what science is. You are quite comfortable with a Judge who has no science background determining whether or not I.D. is 'science.
You say nothing regarding just how glaring a weakness on the part of the scientists themselves that they have failed in the task of making I.D. proponents as 'nonscientists'. Thus your faith is not w/ scientists, buy lawyers and judges.
You claim purity for science and hands off from folks w/ my 'motives'. Be truthful for once if you would: you are motivated by the fear of the legal system losing control over who gets to decide what words mean, especially a word like 'science'. Lawyers are in control, and it is the Law that merits every sacrifice to keep it that way.
I, however, am motivated by the Truth. For about 4 years ago, I discovered that the Law isn't everything.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment. By the way, I admire your boldness on this forum. Too many are too timid.