As i've written before, Jones wrote this decision with the inevitable Kansas case in mind. he makes it very clear in his findings that "science can not be defined differently" (pg 70) from a definition based on "the scientific method" (pg 65) (i.e., methodological naturalism and the emphasis on physical evidence and causality).
He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.
Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win.
no subject
He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.
Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win.