[Natufian]

You mean the federal judge who demonstrated his scientific credentials by issuing a judgment that was a nearly verbatim regurgitation of an ACLU brief?

Cordially,

---

Judges specifically ask for detailed and well written briefs in order to assist in the writing of their findings. It’s common practice. The 91% quoted by DI was typical hyperbole by them - just as absurd as the arguments that were put forward by ID’ers in the trial and as dishonest as the actions of the defendents - who should have been prosecuted for perjury.

[Diamond]

It’s common practice.

Yes, for lawyers and judges, it is. For scientists, though, it is not. Can you imagine scientists having to rely on ACLU legal bildge to prop up their results?

Your fav federal judge in that same judgment also presumed the authority to falsify a religious belief. Was he relying on a well-written ACLU brief when he did that, too? I guess if you don't mind philospher/king/judges dictating what science is you won't mind if they dictate theology, too.

Cordially,

[tpanther]

...forward by ID’ers in the trial and as dishonest as the actions of the defendents - who should have been prosecuted for perjury.

---

Just a like a liberal, a lawsuit to silence the dissent isn’t enough, now you need to criminalize it, and you want dissenters doing hard time?