[Abd al-Rahiim]

I thank you for your fairness when you emphatically state that you would not have a problem with voters who wanted their children to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in public science classrooms.

I agree with you that it could be argued that Kitzmiller involved censorship of a sort. I agree with you that students should have the freedom to check out a book like Of Pandas and People.

But, censorship was a minor issue in the case. I direct you to the following statement, which was added to the biology curriculum in 2004:

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.

This was problematic. As the defense expert witnesses themselves acknowledged, under the NAS (i.e. accepted) definition of theory, intelligent design is not a theory. Judge Jones used this testimony in his ruling.

[SirLinksalot]

This was problematic. As the defense expert witnesses themselves acknowledged, under the NAS (i.e. accepted) definition of theory, intelligent design is not a theory. Judge Jones used this testimony in his ruling.

Yes, a very fine way to define a theory.

Rule #1

No wishful speculation of Evolution will ever be doubted!

Rule #2 No hard mathmatical or empirical evidence for Design will ever be accepted!

Rule #3 When confronted with overwhelming evidence for design see rule #1