Judge to speak on evolution ruling at university program

Although it might appear otherwise, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III does not believe his participation in October in the Year of Evolution program in Philadelphia will promote anything except his judicial service.

“I’m not a tout for Charles Darwin,” Jones, of Pottsville, said of the developer of the theory of evolution. “I’m not a scientist.”

Jones, who gained worldwide notice for his 2005 ruling that the teaching of the theory of intelligent design was an unconstitutional advancement of religion, will speak on Oct. 13 as part of the citywide program celebrating the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his best-known work, “The Origin of Species.”

Dembski isn’t a scientist but he plays one on TV.

William Albert “Bill” Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American proponent of intelligent design, and its opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection. He is the author of several books concerning intelligent design, theology, and mathematics. From 1999 to 2005, he was on the faculty of Baylor University, where he was a focus of attention and controversy. For the academic year 2005-6, he was briefly the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the first director of the school’s new Center for Theology and Science (since taken over by the well known creationist Kurt Wise).[1] On 1 June 2006 Dembski became research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.[2] The Southern Baptist Convention operates both seminaries.

Over at Uncommon Descent, Bill promotes his latest book:

The book is geared at Christian young people (junior high and high schoolers) as well as for Church groups (e.g., Sunday Schools) to help get out the word about ID — specifically WHAT IS IT? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? and WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT?

All science so far.

To Professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern University School of Law, the author of a treatise on judicial ethics, the issue is not really plagiarism at all.
"There is no premium on originality in the legal system," he said. It is not uncommon for courts to incorporate sections of briefs into their opinions, though probably not to the extent alleged by the Rosenblatts, he said.
"The real issue is the appearance of impropriety when a court doesn't seem to be doing its own work," he said. "We want to know the court's own thought processes because the whole purpose of a legal opinion is to educate the parties and the higher court about the reasons for a decision."
Professor Paul D. Carrington of Duke University Law School, who has also written on judicial ethics, agreed that plagiarism is troubling if it shows that the court hasn't given independent thought to a case. He was not willing to reach that conclusion in the Engle case. "That judgment was surely doomed," he said. "The punitive award was way too big."
Carrington said he has no objection to a court's adopting language from a brief if the party has done an elegant job of framing the issues and summarizing the evidence.
"That's flattery, not cheating," he said, adding that "plagiarism is generally a complaint made by the author."

Link

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.