Casey Luskin, continues his “assaults” on Judge Jones’ devastating ruling for Intelligent Design while conveniently forgetting the Discovery Institute’s Amicus Curiae to the case.
Luskin argues that, based on an statements made by Judge Jones on the “Lehrer Newshour”, the ruling by Jones should be considered flawed:
First, Judge Jones admitted that a key question his ruling answered was whether intelligent design was “good science,” and he states that “after six weeks of largely expert testimony, I came to the conclusion that it simply was not good science” (emphasis added). This proves his judicial activism because it shows that, in his mind, a key question was not the constitutionality of Dover’s policy in particular, but rather a broad sweeping question about whether ID is “good science,” something that is totally inappropriate and unnecessary for the federal judiciary to answer in such a case over the constitutionality of a science curriculum.
Why is this claim so ironic? Well, if you read the submissions of the Discovery Institute to the judge, they argue that since ID is science, it cannot be ruled to be unconstitutional. In other words, they insist that the judge resolves the issue of ID being science. When he actually does this and he rules contrary to their expectations, the judge suddenly becomes an activist judge.
The Discovery Institute’s own website demonstrates that their amicus brief was submitted to argue “… about secular purposes for teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design”” (October 31, 2005)
So what was the argument of the Discovery Institute which forced the judge to rule on the issue of ID being science?
The Amicus Brief argues:
The Law Does Not Require That Government Action Have No Religious Purpose, But Only That Secular Purposes Predominate
There Are Many Legitimate Secular Purposes Under Which The Theory Of Intelligent Design Could Be Taught
Curriculum Policies Sanctioning The Teaching Of Design Theory Could Be Constructed In Which Secular Purposes Predominate
And under secular purposes, the DI claims “The Theory of Intelligent Design Employs Established Scientific Methods”, “Empirical Evidence Supports the Theory of Intelligent Design”, “Peer-reviewed and Peer-edited Scientific Literature Supports the Theory of Intelligent Design” and finally ‘Attempts to Define Intelligent Design As Inherently Unscientific Depend Upon Discredited, Arbitrary, Or Contentious Definitions Of Science”
In the introduction, the DI clearly lays the foundation for the Judge’s ruling
Amicus disputes the second, more general claim, because it ignores the many secular purposes under which the theory of intelligent design could be taught, as well as the likely primary effect of teaching about intelligent design—to advance science education.
and the ask the judge
… to fashion relief that does not impugn the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design, since policies permitting such instruction might reflect valid secular purposes and could enhance religious neutrality.
In other words, the Judge by listening to the Discovery Institute’s request has now become an activist judge.
Figures… Kitzmiller is just a gift that keeps on giving