Excellent post. This court case wasn't so much about science, as about competing religious viewpoints. This decision also came down to the musings of an activist judge.
And perjury by the defendents.
No, no, no, that's not possible. He said he wasn't an activist judge. So he must not be.
The old evolutionist argument: "It's true because I said so. Don't believe the facts in front of your face."
Can you cite from his ruling why you believe he is an activist judge? There are acitvist judges, but as a label, it has been used very liberally to be all the court decisions that we disagree on the decision.