When a Federal District Court judge says information bearing the imprimatur of the Discovery Institute is NOT science, it is a good bet he is right.
Generally when a publisher classifies a book, it is for purposes of clarity within the ontology. When the Discovery Institute people classify their books it is for the purpose of destroying the integrity of the structure of knowledge.
If libraries can't deal with the issue, they have a problem discriminating honesty from dishonesty. The judge said that the Discovery Institute people are disingenuous and dishonest. Just how does that translate into a "different point of view?"