Well, Judge Jones himself predicted that the ID’ers would try to brand him as an activist. And here they go–from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization bent on pushing ID:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work.”

“Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.”

Of course, if you read the decision, you’ll see that it is taught, going no further than is necessary. Every step is mandated and covers the legal arguments made before the court. There is no question but that if Judge Jones had failed to cover any of his points, these same fundamentalists would then be using those gaps to claim victory.

Not to mention that Jones is not “stopping the spread of debate” in any way, shape or form.

“Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world. Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”

Which, of course, is an inane statement. Jones did not ban anyone from learning about ID. The same students can spend every waking moment studying ID if they so please. Judge Jones simply ruled that it was not part of a science curriculum. Neither, I believe, does it purely ban ID, rather, it bans school boards from requiring it.

And again, he is not attempting to kill off interest or stop ID from developing; in fact, he states clearly that “[we do not] controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.”

“Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools. But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis.”

This is a rather blatant lie. If they opposed efforts to mandate ID, why are they not in favor of this opinion? Further, they suggest here that ID cannot be discussed in the science classroom. I am fairly sure it does not do that–the ruling stated clearly that “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” (italics mine). A teacher should be able to bring up the ID argument without problem.

In short, these people are full of it. But there is some base, visceral enjoyment in seeing these people get hopping mad and braying this contrived pap as uselessly as a dog barking at the moon. Reason won out this time–sorry, Charlie.