Apparently the left wing bloggers have determined that Justice Scalia does not "believe" in evolution. One of the left wing bloggers, who in my opinion is all too often a bit over snarky states:
The text goes on just like that: simply summarizing
molecular biology. That’s right, Justice Scalia can’t confirm these
details with his knowledge (valid) or his belief (um, what?).
Can't he hire a clerk to teach him molecular biology?
Now let us examine just what this complaint seems to be.
Justice Scalia states:
I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.
Now one should note several things. First belief is a legal term of art, and before commenting the Justice indicated that this is a complex issue which may not have been fully illuminated. Second, and this is critical, Scalia unlike the one who crafted the opinion, uses the correct term for cDNA, complementary DNA, not what we have commented in before. Thus Justice Scalia is spot on in both delimiting his knowledge in the complexity of the issue and secondly in using the correct term.
Thus unlike the left wing bloggers he appears as is so often the case to be correct, and the left wing bloggers just wrong. So what else is new?