Casey Luskin, "Kitzmiller Top Ten" (2005)

10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn't (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents.

9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).**

8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).**

7) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is a solid theory (pg. 41) and that irreducible complexity has been refuted (pg. 64).**

6) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by making religious motivations of public proponents a relevant factor in deciding whether or not a theory can be taught.

5) It wrongly approves of the “it’s wrong to single out evolution” argument which was validated in Selman. (pg. 39-40) and wrongly claims “evolution is theory ... not fact” language is unconstitutional based upon Selman (which may be overruled on that point anyway).

4) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by using the endorsement test to determine if a scientific theory of biological origins would endorse (or presumably "dis-endorse") the teaching of a controversial idea in the eyes of the average citizen.

3) It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers (pg. 64).

2) It completely ignores ALL of the statements in Pandas making it clear that ID is NOT a supernatural explanation--the Judge doesn't even mention with these statements, much less explain why the Court disagrees with them.

1) Incredibly, this trial court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court, as precedent for all. (pg. 63-64).

> ** Even if these points are true, which some people may believe they are, courts have no business ruling on such matters. These are not issues for courts to rule on. <p>