Indeed, the decision may be appealed - or a new case may begin. I agree that the press weighed in inappropriately and that the defense was poorly argued, but that may have been the consequence of the facts of the case - that there was an alternative book offered. The Discovery Institute itself has only suggested that the controversy be taught, not alternative theories - that puts it in a different ballpark.
No one has ever prevented teachers from mentioning the fact that all of science is the current best explanation of evidence.
Reading through the opinion....first thought is that the judge's decision to apply the Lemon test to the case suggests he pre-decided that ID was religious -- which I thought was one of the questions at issue.
Where am I thinking wrong on this?
Alas, the DI was unable to produce any alternative theories at the trial, and the 'controversy' fizzled like a firecracker in a wet paper bag. Not much to teach under those circumstances...
Another thought....the judge says that ID grew out of the fundamentalist movement.
It is just such a presupposition that when applied as an overlay on this case automatically decides the case.
If, for example, the school is applying a prayer in homeroom, then there's an automatic realization that one is dealing with religion. The prayer will be ruled out of bounds.
In this case the question is whether ID is religious.
I would say that ID grew out of evolutionary teaching and not out of fundamentalism. If that statement on my part is seen as biased, then so should the statement that "ID grew out of fundamentalism."
It is a priori deciding the case.