This judge's comments raise important questions. One is many judge's see the courtroom in which they preside as "their" courtroom and their little fiefdom to control. The second problem might be based on failure of education. Lawyers, which also then may become judges, simply are poorly educated. Sure, they are have degrees in history, English, political science, etc. All very soft.
My guess is that far less than 1% of all judges and attorneys have any mathematical or scientific education or understanding, if any, likely only at the bachelor's degree level. The exception might be those attorney's involved with patent law.
What about computer science and programming? It would be useful to have attorney's and judges with such knowledge but knowledge here is not of the same nature as hard sciences. Simply put, attorneys and judges are not typically qualified to consider matters involving mathematical and scientific issues.
It's possible that judges with such a background or at least some manner of education in these areas do exist, but that would have been something to address a while ago.
Bleck you beat me to it. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up anyway. The reason she wouldn't admit it into evidence has been stated several times on here.