Asked about his ruling on Intelligent Design not being science the Judge reminds us of a simple fact: Both sides had insisted a ruling on this issue
The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue.
The Judge also comments on another issue which was ‘grossly misunderstood’
The opinion speaks for itself. There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood.… I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn’t a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country.… I wanted it to stand as a primer so that folks on both sides of the issue could read it, understand the way the debate is framed, see the testimony in support and against the various positions… and what is heartening to me is that it’s now evident that it’s being used in that way.…
The Dover v Kitzmiller decision, contrary to ID pundits’ predictions, has already become a foundation for other legal cases and challenges. The thoroughness of the decision, the weeks of testimony by both sides have come to support what many already had concluded: Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.