[connectthedots]

That the evolutionist side is the plaintiff in this case does not mean that evolution isn't on trial.

[MineralMan]

"That the evolutionist side is the plaintiff in this case does not mean that evolution isn't on trial."

---

Wrong again. This trial is about a single thing, and that thing is not evolution. It is about whether a school board may support and recommend a bogus "theory" to its students.

Intelligent Design is in no way intelligent, and it doesn't even have a designer. It has nothing to recommend it at all, except some claims that there "must have been a designer, since we can't understand how cilia came to be or how blood clotting came to be."

That, my dotted and connected friend, is not, and cannot be science. It's a transparent shell over Creationism, and it won't wash.

[Ichneumon]

That the evolutionist side is the plaintiff in this case

No, it isn't. The plaintiff in this case are several concerned parents. A mandatory creationist "statement" is what's on trial.

does not mean that evolution isn't on trial.

Dream on.

[shuckmaster]

That the evolutionist side is the plaintiff in this case does not mean that evolution isn't on trial.

The 1st amendment freedom of religion side is the plaintiff in this case. Quit making stuff up.

[dmz]

Why, yes, yes it does. The defendant is on trial, not the plaintiff.