Sorry. I don't buy it. A woman is hired to meticulously scan over the book looking for evidence of religious agenda. Finds a word with a broad definition that had been changed to a term deemed more appropriate (a term that wasn't even used at the time of the original writing) to avoid confusion. And then claims it's smoking gun evidence.
If it was so obvious it was religious in nature, why the need to hire a philo vigilante to place it under a microscope?
Thus the trial that was basically a circus. It's such a mess that the accusers are not sure if it's a constitutional issue, science issue, science class issue, or a public school issue in general.
Of course everything was studied and prepared
carefully.
You know that due diligence is the
duty and obligation of attorneys. Of course they
fine- tooth.
And if there is figurative " tape on lock at the
Watergate" they will find it. And the loser
says it wasnt fair.
You deny that ID, as it exists today is christian fundy creationism in thin disguise?
It sure isnt science.
It utterly false to pretend it is.
Why would you support it?
If someone ever discovers, say, one fact showing
design, then, its on its was to being science.
But so far, as with every other sorry attempt to back yec with science there isnt and never has been even one fact.
Lost, ten thousand to zero.
Complain that the referee wasnt fair.
Its embarrassing to behold.
