Casey Luskin has listed the top ten things that Judge Jones did wrong. At The Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur responds with a top-ten list of things that Judge Jones did right. Actually, Panda's Thumb has a lot of commentary on the decision. A lot.
Paul Nelson writes:
But of course it wasn't all over — see the headlines in your local paper and on the web today, 18 years after Edwards v. Aguillard and 23 after McLean v. Arkansas — because the debate at hand is not, at bottom, a legal matter. Sure, the federal courts (at all levels) in the United States frequently become entangled with "creationism" and now "intelligent design," but these legal proceedings turn out to be oddly repetitive moving picture shows in a flapping canvas tent. Although the title on the marquee changes, the plot is strangely the same. You have seen this movie before. You know how it ends: the "creationists" lose in the courtroom. And yet the debate about origins continues.
Carl Zimmer writes:
Months of media coverage of the trial had nurtured my dread. Again and again, reporters felt an obligation to give "equal time" to intelligent design advocates, without feeling an equal obligation to fact-check the claims that the advocates were throwing out. I assumed Judge Jones would follow suit.
Once I started reading the decision, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong.
William Dembski writes:
Ultimately, the significance of a court case like this depends not on a judge's decision but on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In the minds of most, it was a decisive victory for evolution. Yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolution).
John Wilkins writes:
This is, of course, a political fight. To them the law is just a tool to impose their own political influence. A loss here has no substantive implication, like, for example, ID is a load of religious dogma, but is only a temporary setback. So disparage the judge, call him an "activist" judge (which we know is code for "fails to get with the program" in right-speak), and keep the faithful hopeful. After all, gotta keep those donations rolling in.
Lawrence Selden of Darwinian Fundamentalist has a running commentary on the decision.
Jason Rosenhouse writes:
This is exactly what scientific critics of ID have been saying for years. In fact, as I read through the opinion, I am struck by the extent to which Judge Jones' opinion, based entirely on the evidence before him and the relevant caselaw, matches almost perfectly what people on my side of this have been saying for years.
David Heddle writes:
Too many people on both sides of the debate (including plenty of the most obnoxious bigmouths on the evolution side) are not doing any science. They are doing politics and talking or writing about someone else's science. ID scientists (that is, scientists who are pro-ID) should do research and write peer-reviewed papers the same way science has been done for, now, hundreds of years. The papers will not be ID papers"”they will be "politically" indistinguishable from other research papers. ID scientists should give talks, teach classes, attend conferences"”discussing and presenting what is indisputably science. Nothing makes a scientist more credible than an impressive vita. ID scientists should be working on having impeccable scientific credentials.
I'm sure there's more out there. If you've written something I haven't mentioned, link to it in the comments, and I'll include it.