John Pieret has also done an excellent job of fisking Michael Francisco’s claim that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the question of whether ID is science. He makes many of the same points I make, but in more detail. He included one argument that I intended to include but forgot as well. Francisco makes a big deal out of the fact that in the section of the ruling about “Whether ID is Science”, Judge Jones only cites precedent three times, which he says is “strikingly sparse.” I noticed this when initially reading his post but forgot to respond to it. Pieret nails it:
Considering that this section is only 18% of the decision and is specifically dealing with findings of fact based on the recitation of the extensive trial testimony and exhibits, it is hardly unusual that case law is not heavily referred to in it. Nor am I aware of any minimum number of precedents necessary to support a decision. A single apropos Supreme Court precedent is sufficient for almost any purpose. Like any good magician practicing sleight of hand, Mr. Francisco would have you counting the number of citations in this section rather than paying attention to the devastating litany of facts demonstrating the utter lack of scientific merit to ID and its status, instead, as barely disguised theology.
Pieret’s entire article is well worth reading.