Kind of bizarre. I.D. as it is written up is a study of statistics, not a religious teaching. It does not say, as Malacasta seemed to suggest, that what is not understood must be from intelligent design. It attempts to identify a statistical breakpoint of probability below which something should normally be considered designed as opposed to naturally occuring.

At least that's what the book said. I don't know what version of it eventually made it to court. I guess I will have to look it up and see what about it the judge could possibly call an out and out lie.