[MHalblaub]

"By way of anticipating the reaction to the ruling, Jones emphasized that "he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed . . . " And this is the key: In Kansas and other jurisdictions, the teaching is permitted, not mandated. Always seek an open forum, so all sides can be discussed, and science compared to science."

This is a typical creationist citing/lying technique.
First if you put something between quotation marks you have to cite and identify your alterations.

The correct statement is:
"Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
(p. 137, Case No. 04cv2688 "Memorandum Opinion")

or finally
"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant...

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs..."
(p. 139, Case No. 04cv2688 "Memorandum Opinion")

The key of the judgment is ID is not scientific therefore keep it out of science classes.

[jboot]

The key of the judgment is ID is not scientific therefore keep it out of science classes.

Lacking specific legislation to inform it, what standing does the law have to define science? The same standing that it has to define school curriculum: none. The school board was within its rights; the judge was not.

Fascists and statists both left and right like to use the courts to create law rather than interpret it. Don't like ID? Pass a law against it. That's what the legislature is for.