He said that it (cut-past w/ errors) seriously undercuts the credibility of Jones' examination of the scientific validity of the intelligent-design argument and it does.
No, it doesn't.
You obviously haven't read the transcripts - the defense's star witness, under oath, admitted that ID is as scientific as astrology.
The only side to put forward a valid scientific analysis was the plaintiff. The only side to lie in court was the defense. That the judge recognized those two facts in no way weakens his argument.
Two years later, some folks are still counting chads.
There was a time and a place when DI could have testified, but they chickened out. They demanded, as witnesses, the right to have attorneys present. Since the appearance of perjury was an issue in the findings, they were no doubt wise not to testify.
I think you (and Judge Jones) misunderstood what Behe was saying.
"The only side to put forward a valid scientific analysis was the plaintiff."
Would that be the 'truth by popular opinion' analysis?