...Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition.
It's so nice when someone really seems to get it.
More from the decision:
The Supreme Court instructed in Edwards that it has been particularly
'vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.' 482 U.S. at 583-84. The Supreme Court went on to state that:Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be
used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.
Id. (citing Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383 (1985); Wallace, 472
U.S. at 60 n.51).
After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion.
The decision is a long one (139 pages), but I suggest everyone at least skim it. It's good reading.
I congratulate this judge on a job well done.