Kitzmiller and "accommodationism"
In the conclusion section of his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, crackpot activist Judge "Jackass" Jones wrote,
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.(emphasis added)
Fundy creationists of course disagree with the above statement in bold, but it is now apparent that many Darwinists also disagree with that statement because of its "accommodationist" stance. "Accommodationism" means making nice with theistic evolutionists or people who believe that evolution and religion are compatible. The debate over accommodationism has really been heating up lately   . Sleazy PZ Myers is quite blunt about his opinion of accommodationism:
What I really object to is the goofy "if you don't be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home". I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.
As for Jones above statement that "the theory of evolution represents good science," there is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state (it has also been claimed that there is really no constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but that is another matter).
The above statement that evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator" is a personal religious or philosophical belief that has no place in a judicial opinion. The Kitzmiller opinion is arbitrary and subjective but Judge Jones has been trying to give the false impression that it is objective and unavoidable. In an effort to give the false impression that any other judge would have made the same decision and written the same opinion that he did in Kitzmiller, Judge Jones claimed that judges "operate in a very workmanlike way" :
We operate in a very workmanlike way, believe it or not. We find the facts, as we did in this case, by listening to the testimony, and then we apply well-established law to those facts. It's a sequential process that is time-tested. Every judge does it in the United States.
Judge Jones also charged that critics of his Kitzmiller decision have no respect for "the rule of law" and "judicial independence." Also, he has not acknowledged criticism from legal scholars but has only acknowledged criticisms from personalities of the popular media -- e.g., Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan.
Of course, the Darwinists treat Judge Jones like he can do no wrong. The most irritating thing about Judge Jones is that the general media treats him as a brilliant judge instead of the crackpot activist judge that he is. He is too stupid to be a judge.