[antiRepublicrat]

I, personally, don't consider ID or Creationism to be "legitimate religious beliefs" for one thing

The judge never decided on the legitimacy of any religious belief. As you said, that's not his place.

What he did decide on was whether ID is secular science. This case is much narrower than most of your rhetoric has been.

[muawiyah]

The judge, in fact, said: "We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

In this one phrase he said that creationism is, in fact, a religious doctrine, and so is ID since it "cannot uncouple itself".

That is, the judge has declared that both creationism and ID are religious.

I say they are not and that the government does not have the authority, under this Constitution, to tell me what is or is not religious in nature.

I know this is a narrow reading and one not much liked by the folks who want to impose evolutionary doctrines (presumably secular in nature) in the schools. Still, any religious nature someone might ascribe to something, is not really the business of government.