Sorry to take so long with a reply... vacation.

Quote:
Quote:
in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science.

And the irony of all this is that science isn't something that can even be ruled upon by a judge or jury. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence and require no judgement, merely the results of reproducible observations and experiments.

Did you read the ruling? This is why the judge ruled ID to be 'not science'. He didn't rule it 'not science' based on the validity of the theory itself -- he ruled it 'not science' because there was absolutely no evidence shown during the trial that it met the standard definition of science (let alone the one you propose above). In fact, it was said that the definition of science itself would have to be changed before ID could be considered science.

Quote:
Of course, a judge can rule whether a given textbook is taught in a state-run school, and that's what this was all about.

Yes, but to do that, the judge has to apply several tests as set out by legal precedent, one of which is to determine the secular value of what's being argued about. Read the judgement -- it's very, very thorough it its reasoning. Calling ID 'not science' is only a part of the basis for the ruling.

Quote:
That's probably the biggest potential long-term damage that this case could have, making people think that science itself can be unilaterally judged or voted upon. That's a dangerous road.

It's a dangerous road, but it's not a road that can be started upon based on this ruling -- in fact, that road is the one that the ID proponents took in the first place, which the judge admonished them for.