Abstract
In his recent ruling, the Honorable John E. Jones III ruled that the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools is unconstitutional because it is religion, not science (Kitzmiller v. Dover School District; Document 342. Dec. 20, 2005). As part of his ruling he declared that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory" (p. 43). It seems that one of the assumptions of ID's "wedge" strategy (Johnson, 2000) is an expectation of a reasonable level of objectivity in the US court system. Such is not to be found in this particular court, and may represent one of the weaknesses of the "wedge" strategy.