[LogicWings]

The crucial, salient sentence in the article was:

The changes also alter the definition of science to allow for non-natural explanations.

In other words, the changes allow for "explanations" for which there is no evidence, can be no evidence and THEREFORE can only be taken on faith.

But ID doesn't have anything to do with Creationism, now does it?

But then again, it doesn't have anything to do with science either.

[PatrickHenry]

This is a pdf file of the plaintiff's closing argument in the Dover trial. It's 21 pages long (double spaced). I can't figure out how to start a thread with only a pdf file, so I'm posting the link here and pinging the whole evo list. If you've been following the trial, it's worth reading:

Closing argument by Eric Rothschild, Esq.

[RightWhale]

The changes also alter the definition of science to allow for non-natural explanations.

This is funny. If Goddidit, wouldn't that be completely natural?