Complex, contentious scientific questions should be declared non-justiciable
There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state.
Ken Miller wrote,
But there is something very strange, and even distressing, about Luskin’s contention that the obvious failings of the arguments in Pandas ["Of Pandas and People," the ID book purchased by the Dover Area school board] are somehow less important than the ones in DBB ["Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe]. Why is it OK to give high school readers an argument about the irreducible complexity of the entire cascade that you know to be false (as Luskin admits), just as long as you modify that argument in another book? Luskin seems to have forgotten that the Dover trial was about an issue much more important than the fate of ID…. It was about what should be taught to high school science students.
So what Miller is really saying here is that the Dover school board purchased the wrong ID book -- the board should have purchased "Darwin's Black Box" instead.
And Miller tries to use a 2008 scientific paper to defend a 2005 court decision:
[Russell Doolittle's] 2008 paper [Doolittle et al, 2008] reports on a careful search through the lamprey genome. The lamprey, as luck would have it, has a perfectly functional clotting system, and it lacks not only the three factors missing in jawed fish, but also Factors IX and V.
Panda's Thumb also has an article about the debate.