From Foundation for Thought and Ethics on the 2005 court case. Here:
Although significant quantities of the book have lost all market value, it’s never too late to set the record straight. Gathered evidence in the form of original records, documents, and confirming points of reference from a variety of public and private records tells a very different story. This documented information contradicts, and indeed, fully refutes the central narrative of the Kitzmiller story. It demonstrates that, from the outset, FTE was seeking to determine if intelligence played a role in bringing about living forms. In testing its ideas and searching for the most accurate, descriptive, and appropriate terminology to characterize the role of intelligence in biology, FTE considered many terms, none of which broke with scientific convention.
…
Contrary to Judge Jones’ ruling that Pandas was originally intended to advocate creationism, FTE in fact agreed with previous court rulings against teaching actual creationism in public schools. For example, within the 30-day appeal period immediately following the 1982 district court ruling against the teaching of creationism in McLean v. Arkansas, Charles Thaxton and I met with Arkansas Attorney General Steve Clark in his offices in Little Rock, urging him not to appeal the verdict. Simply put, this was because FTE agreed that “creation science” promoted a religious viewpoint that was not appropriate for use in public schools, and that future court rulings would no doubt concur that it is not legal to advocate in public schools. As the list of 42 reviewers and 8 editors and contributors in the front of Pandas might suggest, we believed that partisans on both sides of the worldview divide might find an academic and educational solution to be far superior to any legislative one. More.