001. at scottishlegal.com, we're told in "Woman Fails in Legal Challenge Over Health Board’s 'Unlawful' Withdrawal of Homeopathic Services" (2015-08-31):
"a disabled woman who challenged a health board’s decision to cease providing homeopathic treatment has had a petition for judicial review dismissed [...] Lord Uist [...] a judge in the Court of Session [Scotland's highest court, btw] dismissed the claim after ruling that the board had 'a proper and conscientious focus' on its statutory duty [...stating] 'it is clear to me from an examination of the relevant documents that the Board was from the outset consciously focusing on its PSED [public sector equality duty...] it is plain that the board, as it was entitled to do, accepted the view that there was no scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy and that funding for it was a waste of the limited funds at its disposal.'"
002. at Wikipedia, we're told in "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District":
"on December 20, 2005, [Judge] Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from 'maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.'"
it's nice to see courts of law 'get it right regarding what is science.'