Anti-ID decision probably won't be appealed, but board members still might end up in court
There are countless discussion questions prompted by yesterday's court decision barring a Pennsylvania school district from requiring its schools to mention Intelligent Design and describe Darwin's theory of evolution as "a theory … not a fact."

We could discuss whether it's best to have a solitary judge rule on whether science requires methodological naturalism. We could discuss the propriety of a judge issuing a ruling that religion, and specifically with Christianity, are compatible with evolution. We could discuss William Saletan's interesting argument that Judge John Jones falls prey to the same "contrived dualism" that he condemns. We could talk about Jones's statement "no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area" when Jones himself admits that the supposed supporters of Intelligent Design in this case "had utterly no grasp of ID" (one board member "consistently referred to ID as 'intelligence design' throughout her testimony.") And surely we could talk about the future of Intelligent Design as an academic pursuit in the wake of this ruling.

But first, before we talk about any of those things, let's talk about one of the major issues in Jones's ruling: honesty among the board members supporting Intelligent Design.

"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain ...