- He complains that courts saw a "religious intent" where there was none, yet continues to push for Biblical accounts of creationism only. He can't seem to make up his mind between creationism in general and his particular brand of it.
- He continually assumes that it's an 'either/or' situation between evolution (which is actually a wide range of competing theories) and creationism (by which he means his own specific version of it). He does not include 'all' possibilities: pancreationism, including seeding of life by aliens, meteorites, or intelligent machines, spontaneous appearance of life without holy intervention, etc. If you've seen the movie "The Messenger (Joan of Arc)", and remember the "sword in a field" section, you must know what I mean.
- "However, science instruction should restrict itself to true science, that which is observable, repeatable, testable, and predictable. This would exclude both creation and evolution worldviews, but it wouldn't exclude the evidence." This was a gem: while providing a good definition for science, he mistakingly confuses science with history.
- As with anyone with an agenda, we find the usual: "civil liberties" is put in quotes, opponents are called "lobby groups" (which is true, but of both), there's a reference to "self-appointed intellectual 'elite'", universities are accused of turning out one-track-mind zombies, and teachers are depicted as the helpless victims of thugs from the evolution mafia, under threat of lawsuit, forced to hide evidence they know to favor creationism (painting bystanders as victims earns you an extra 5000 points!)
This is only an example. There's better, there's worse. By itself, this example proves nothing. Talking about it was just more fun that any of the other things I need to be doing.