Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Predictably, the attorneys for the ACSI showed serious incompetence in the case. This passage is amusing:

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived any animus argument when Plaintiffs' counsel stated "We do not intend to argue the case based on proving animus" at the hearing on the parties' first round of summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs dispute this argument, explaining that they did not intend to argue animus until this Court used that term to describe the punishment of disfavored viewpoints prohibited by National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 587 (1998).

Amusing. "We said we weren't going to argue animus until the judge reminded us that we needed to in order to fit the precedents we were citing." Law school 101. Regardless, they didn't actually present any evidence of animus anyway:

Here, Plaintiffs provide no evidence of animus. Instead, Plaintiffs essentially argue that Defendants had no rational basis for their actions and therefore they must have been motivated by animus. This argument adds nothing to the constitutional analysis; if Defendants had no rational basis, the Court need not reach the issue of animus.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. The section of the ruling dealing with the Biology book is hardly surprising. The arguments are pretty obvious:

Defendants' biology experts, Professors Donald Kennedy and Francisco Ayala, reviewed the A Beka text and a second Biology text published by BJU and concurred in her judgment. Professor Kennedy determined that "[b]y teaching students to reject scientific evidence and methodology whenever they might be inconsistent with the Bible . . . both texts fail to encourage critical thinking and the skills required for careful scientific analysis." (Kennedy Decl. Ex. A, at 8.) Professor Ayala found that the texts "reject the methodology generally accepted in science, which relies on observation and experimentation and on the formulation of laws and theories that need to be tested rather than accepted on the basis of the Bible or any other authority." (Ayala Decl. Ex. A, at 4.)

And Behe's expert report is explicitly rejected:

Plaintiffs offer little admissible evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs' Biology expert, Dr. Michael Behe, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. However, Professor Behe "did not consider how much detail or depth" the texts gave to this standard content. Therefore, Professor Behe fails to refute one of Professor Kennedy's primary concerns that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately.

Science 2, Behe 0. The plaintiffs say they're going to appeal.