Witt-ness for the plaintiffs?

Amazingly, Witt continues his fallacious arguments and further undermines the Discovery Institute’s official position as submitted to the Court in its Amicus Brief

Witt wrote:

The sidebar misses this point, but the Judge’s error is greater. Setting himself up as an expert on science, Jones argues that the scientific arguments of design theorists must be ruled out of the Dover classroom because these scientists are also interested in the positive cultural effects of overthrowing Darwinism.

But such fallacious reasoning also disqualifies the scientific arguments of Darwin defenders like Daniel Dennett, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins, for all are passionately interested in the metaphysical implications that Darwinism has for their anti-religious agenda.

First problem: Judge Jones did not argue that scientific arguments must be ruled out because these scientists are also interested in overthrowing Darwinism. Anyone who has read the actual decision would realize that the Judge’s ruling on Intelligent Design not being science was based on the vacuity of the ID arguments.

Thus the conclusion in the second paragraph about the consequences of Judge Jones’ ruling is based on a false premise and should be rejected.

ID has been rejected as a science not because of the religious beliefs of its proponents but because of its scientific vacuity. In its filing of the Amicus Brief, the Discovery Institute argued that the primary effect of teaching ID was not necessarily religious and that ID was in fact scientific. Since the question of ID being science was essential to the ruling, Judge Jones ruled appropriately.

I appreciate that this may be hard to accept. But why is this so hard to understand?