It was not legally or Constitutionally necessary under Lemon and the Ambler Realty principle once the judge determined that the school board had religious motives. But what do such limitations matter to a liberal judge who conflates the motives of a local school board with an entire scientific movement so that he can dictate a broad array of public policy issues? Even an ID critic such as Jay Wexler recognize the over broad scope of the decision:
The important issue for evaluating the decision is not whether ID actually is science—a question that sounds in philosophy of science—but rather whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science as a matter of law. On this question, I think the answer is “no,” particularly when the overall question posed to a court is whether teaching ID endorses religion , not whether ID is or is not science. The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion.
Jay D. Wexler, Kitzmiller and the “Is It Science?” Question, 5 First Amend. L. Review. 90, 93 (2006)
The evidence that ID is not science and has a theological underpinning was also compelling and well within the scope of his findings.
And is it also within the scope of his employment to dictate from the federal bench the heresy of certain religious assumptions; namely, that to see conflict between religion and evolution is "utterly false"?
Cordially,
A fair point, well put forward. I suppose that the Johnson, Behe et al should have not fought the case in the way they did then since the defendents were only exposed in their lies towards the end of an exhaustive process. Johnson in particular seems to be the prime suspect in getting defendents to adopt wilfullly unreal positions during the pre-trail deposition stage that were inevitably going to be found out at any trial. He was desperate to have this fight. Without that, it is likely that the case would never have to got to court.
Great point, and all the hallmarks of a science cult are in place because every time the cult of evolution is challenged in any meaningful way, it's automatically attacked as being religious and/or anti-science.
A fair point, well put forward. I suppose that the Johnson, Behe et al should have not fought the case in the way they did then since the defendents were only exposed in their lies towards the end of an exhaustive process. Johnson in particular seems to be the prime suspect in getting defendents to adopt wilfullly unreal positions during the pre-trail deposition stage that were inevitably going to be found out at any trial. He was desperate to have this fight. Without that, it is likely that the case would never have to got to court.