An attorney can find an 'expert' to say anything in many cases. Given that the plaintiffs' witnesses have conceded the point that evolution is not a fact, an alternative viewpoint may very well have merit.
As an aside, if evolutionists have no explanation for the origins of life; they are really in no position to to simply claim that an intelligent designer was not involved.
...which explains Behe's appearance on the stand.
Given that the plaintiffs' witnesses have conceded the point that evolution is not a fact,
...given that you keep misrepresenting what they actually did and did not say...
an alternative viewpoint may very well have merit.
Except that it doesn't.
As an aside, if evolutionists have no explanation for the origins of life; they are really in no position to to simply claim that an intelligent designer was not involved.
Right, which is why they don't "simply make" such claims. The objection to "ID" is not that it has somehow been ruled out, it's that there is no evidence in support of that hypothesis, yet its proponents want it presented as if it was on par with actual science.