She's still alive!

PyCon really started a trend!

IANAL...

You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit, if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances. You're not forced to follow the directions of the judge, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a jury at all. If I was Peter Watts' lawyer, reading your message, I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning, on grounds of misdirection.

Scientists are frequently admonished for publishing ideas which have no scientific basis, or for which there is little or no evidence or where elementary mistakes were made in assumptions or experiments.

We can argue whether God exists or not, but most reasonable people would agree that there is no scientific basis for religion. There is no measurable evidence, there is no coherent hypothesis, and not even a broad consensus of opinion among religious communities.

Therefore it has no place in a science classroom.