I agree, I could have worded that sentence better, component was a poor choice. Companion may have been better. I should have instead said it more like I did in the previous paragraph, where I clearly pointed out that the Big Bang theory is distinct from evolutionary theory.

Even proponents of evolution and the Big Bang (whether IDers or not, because it is certain that the Big Bang is not a theory exclusively claimed by evolutionists, but also by many IDers)

My point was not that the Judge’s ruling bans evolutionary theory, but that it seems to ban teaching of the Big Bang theory (regardless of whether the person holds to a macro-evolutionary theory or not), or for that matter, any theory of the origin of the universe or of life itself. No such theory of the origin of life is testable (at least that I’m aware of, or not yet), and therefore any theory of the subject would “fail to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to [explanations that are] testable” and can not be taught in a Dover classroom.

Thanks again for the clarification.

If you believe that evolutionary theory has anything to say on the origin of the universe, or even on the origin of life itself, you do not understand the subject sufficiently to discuss it.

As one of the few who have actually read Darwin’s work (as well as Gould, Dawkins, Weiner, etc.), I am constantly surprised by what people who have not read it think it says.