The defense in Dover gave its best shot. The underlying facts were presented as valid science in direct testimony and expert report. The CROSS EXAMINATION of these "science experts" clearly showed how bankrupt and myth based their opinions were.
I don't believe that for a minute, and I never have, nor will, for reasons I have explained numerous times and which have not been contradicted. That you have those explanations on Ignore is neither here nor there. The reason you had them on Ignore was simply so that you could continue making asinine and devious remarks like the above.
Judge Jones was deciding policy for an educational system which has no other purpose or justification, apart from child-minding, than to create minds and he focussed solely on some sciences to the exclusion of others, in order that the creation of minds never got considered. The sciences excluded would have embarrassed ladies in the court and ladies cannot now be excluded from the court. The fossils, the chiclids and the flagella can be thought of asexually you see. One wouldn't wish the leading defence counsel to have to go home to his female relations after hearing expert evidence from other sorts of scientists about the full range of evolutionary phenomena. Would one?? What have, fossils, chicleds and flagella got to do with creating minds which will be brought to bear on the range of occupations the US offers I can't imagine. Anyone going into an occupation concerning suchlike organisms can easily get up to speed at university on what was discussed in court about those subjects. An hour at the most. Most people have no clue what chiclids and flagella are. And if they have seen any fossils they were probably plastic and the ones in books are mostly drawings. The mechanical valve flange bullshit shows how stupid it all was. Only a complete idiot would try to compare a living organism to a mechanical device. Or somebody talking to idiots for money.
Why inflict that stuff on everybody at a tender age. Economic efficiency has been increased by, among other things, the reduction in tension between the sexes. The "Home" was invented by Christian theology. It's a complex story and it might be of more difficulty than the theory of relativity. The well known problems often seem insurmountable.
But it isn't the point here. Judge Alito is senior to Judge Jones and his single opinion has been set aside whereas Judge Jones' single opinion has been jumped all over with glee and self-complacency by the usual suspects.
BTW--you asserting that my points are "weak" doesn't mean they are weak. That's a form of navel gazing old boy. And are you also asserting that there's a connection between "bankrupt" and "myth". Ho ho!! That tells us something. And you have the nerve to pose as an "artist" talking about art.
And if the USSC is going to make decisions based on the witnesses not being legal hot-shots then something a little nasty looms into view. A Judicial Oligarchy no less, which would soon see off any Scientific Oligarchy. The former might be just riding the latter to the finish line at which point it goes up to the podium to get the cup and the applause and the SO gets put into a stable to wait for the piss-up to finish and then lurches its way along 200 miles of undulating and pot-holed roads in the back of a horsebox towed by a luxury SUV full of drunks singing I Did It My Way. So don't get too cosy with the buggers.
The Constitution was written by lawyer types so it is not being particularly cynical to think they had a Judicial Oligarchy in view as the main purpose. The Constitution of the Courts of Love had a main purpose which wasn't all that obvious to the average citizen of the time. And, as far as I know, it has not been amended once nor thought of being. Where would bankers be if they didn't make their own regulations?
I think that here the judge would call counsel into chambers to inform them that the case was being incompetently proceeded with and offer them guidance on the matter. Otherwise he risks being accused by his peer-reviewers of conducting the case improperly. One simply can't put up a stupid or bribed or frightened counsel on one side as Hitler's courts did.