Reply #9: Here are some blogs commenting on the decision:

[kath]

A particularly good comment:
Seriously, this is a better result that I could have imagined. Going in, the question was whether teachers would be required to reference ID. With this result, it has actually been found unconstitutional to do so. No wonder the DI is pissed; this has left them with less than they had going in.

Favorite excerpts from judge's decision, (from http://jakobknits.blogspot.com/2005/12/voters-delivered-jab-now-judge-jones.html
...Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

and

It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition.


A part of the judge's decision frequently quoted in the MSM (a goody, for sure):
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Here's a very good blog post, with citations by page number of the judge's opinion, titled "Behe, Dembski, ID get a royal smackdown:
Judge says Behe doesn’t even understand his own theory"
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2005/12/behe-dembski-id-get-royal-smackdown.html

Good summary post about the decision and the reaction on both sides, with LOTS of links:
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/kitzcarnival.html

Another blog worth checking out:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/legal_issues/index.html