Judges are not in business either to decide what is good and bad science or to decide what is good and bad theology.
He was appointed by Bush? So what? Earl Warren was a Republican appointee. David Souter was a Republican appointee. They have both made more trouble than the worst Democrat judges.
Evidently Bush made a mistake. He never should have appointed this activist friend of the ACLU.
But when, as here, we have: (a) a US Supreme Court case that says it's unconstitutional to teach creationism as science; and (b) a shady school board that claims their ID stuff is really really really science -- wink wink -- (so the Sup Ct decision doesn't apply to what they're doing), the judge has no choice but to examine their defense. That's his job.
The school board raised the issue of whether ID is science. The judge didn't go around creating this controversy. He was thrust into it by a zealous school board and their lawyers. You can blame the judge if you like, but he did a great conservative job of applying the law as it existed.
You wrote: "Judges are not in business either to decide what is good and bad science or to decide what is good and bad theology."
Reply:
Your phrase "in the business of" is a cute way of disparaging what judges pledge to do--apply the laws. If you don't like the decision, you charge "activism". This is argument by labelism.
You forget--conveniently--that the First Amendment says there shall be "no establishment of religion."
We often hear the issue stated as 'separation of church and state'. However, this phrase is not in the Constitution; rather, the word in the First Amendment is "religion". It is 'religion' which is prohibited from being established by laws (not a church or churches).
This was not an oversight; the authors were thoughtful men, and they did not chose 'religion' over 'church' or 'philosophy' without careful thought to the meaning. Madison noted that throughout history "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" have accompanied the union of religion and government. He also noted that Christianity did not need the support of government to flourish.