Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 12, 2006 | Art Moore

[editor-surveyor]

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

One year ago, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover declared unconstitutional a school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District to hear a one-minute statement that said evolution is a theory and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert called Jones' ruling a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" while lawyer Ed Darrell said the judge "wrote a masterful decision, a model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented." Time magazine said the ruling made Jones one of "the world's most influential people" in the category of "scientists and thinkers."

But an analysis by the Discovery Institute, the leading promoter of intelligent design, concludes about 90.9 percent – 5,458 words of his 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science – was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

"Judge Jones's decision wasn't a masterpiece of scholarship. It was a masterpiece of cut-and-paste," said the Discovery Institute's John West in a phone conference with reporters yesterday.

West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."

[GourmetDan]

"Cards on the table. What do you think he meant?"

I think he meant that just as astrology has been falsified, ID is also subject to falsification.

Therefore, ID is science.

[GourmetDan]

"Why would he need spin? He agreed with their arguments. The only spin here is the DI playing on the ignorance of many of its supporters."

As I said, he 'spun' them as his own. Known errors and all.

[antiRepublicrat]

Fine, but explain how the ACLU is not just a group of cranks.

As bad as the general body of the ACLU's activism is, they have been known to get one right once in a while.

[antiRepublicrat]

All the non-circular data put the Earth at around 6000 years old.

Scriptural timing puts it at between 6,006 and 7,506 years ago.

[highball]

"Creationsist quote mining is so disengenuous."

Yet quote mining from the ACLU is totally acceptable according to ‘your’ philosophy and you accept this as ‘fact‘ due to a ‘quote mining’ ruling?

I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand what "quote mining" is.

Quote mining is taking bits and pieces of a quote out of context to change the meaning. Obviously the judge did not do that with the opinion.

Quote mining is quite commonly done with Darwin's own writings, because he set out possible objections to his work and then demolished them. By only printing the objections, one can advance the fraudulent impression that Darwin felt his Theory to be weak, flawed or unsupported.

Let’s try this again - How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy?

Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with the ToE.

[Heartlander]

From the beginning, the whole thing smelled like an ACLU setup:

Dover was never the primary target of the lawsuit, but rather served as a springboard for striking a blow nationwide against the theory of intelligent design. But the election of a new board that opposed its predecessors’ evolution policy threatened the hopes of the national groups. Even if federal trial judge John E. Jones III declared the old board’s evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be counted on to challenge any decision on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, let alone the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if the new board were to rescind the old board's evolution policy prior to any ruling by Judge Jones, the case might be settled through a consent decree, which would lack the authoritativeness of a mere federal district court decision. It would also diminish or possibly eliminate any chance of the ACLU or AUSCS's recovery of legal costs and fees from the Dover School District.

One might assume the new board's first item of business would be to rescind the old board's evolution policy. Not so. During their first meeting on December 5th, former Dover Board member David Napierski proposed a resolution to rescind the old board’s evolution policy (prior to any court ruling). Acting as a private citizen, Napierski procured the opinion of an attorney, who said that a vote to rescind the evolution policy could stave off a courtroom defeat and significantly reduce or eliminate legal costs and fees. Yet the new board rejected Napierski’s proposal to rescind the old policy….

…Why would the new board keep in place the evolution policy it once so ardently opposed? The School District’s suit brought national attention and ridicule to the community, and the testimony of the former board members exacerbated the situation. A likely forthcoming decision by Judge Jones would overrule both the board and the theory of intelligent design. By rescinding the old board's evolution policy prior to a court ruling, the new board might have curtailed legal costs and fees incurred by a victorious ACLU and AUSCS. But the new board accepted a likely stinging defeat in court, with painful legal bills attached.
ACLU Demands and Dover Designs

[antiRepublicrat]

From the beginning, the whole thing smelled like an ACLU setup:

The board started it, so how could it be an ACLU setup? Unless you think the ACLU got the board elected. The ACLU just got one right, as it has done several times before.

[highball]

"Cards on the table. What do you think he meant?"

I think he meant that just as astrology has been falsified, ID is also subject to falsification.

Therefore, ID is science.

Interesting interpretation, but I don't see how you can substatiate it.

Reading the transcript, it seems very clear to me that what Dr. Behe is saying is that he prefers the common useage of the word as opposed to its scientific meaning.

Let's look at what he actually said under oath. I'll quote a large section so there is no question about context:

Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A (Behe): Yes.

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences.

Behe is arguing that the scientific useage of the word be discarded in favor of the less restrictive common definition.

So in order for ID to be considered a scientific theory under his new definition, it doesn't have to be supported by evidence. Heck, the notion could be flat-out wrong, proven incorrect, and still be considered a "theory." Doesn't say much about confidence in his own work, does it?

So it is as I said: in order for ID to be considered a theory, the word itself must have to be defined down to include such things as astrology.

Hint: the person arguing to re-define words seldom has truth on his side.

[doc30]

Creationists are proficient quote miners. It's a skill they developed in their Bible studies - selective verse readings, etc.

[GourmetDan]

Yep, he said exactly what I said he did. That ID is scientifically falsifiable just as astrology has been scientifically falsified.

You just don't see it.

Oh well.

[antiRepublicrat]

As I said, he 'spun' them as his own. Known errors and all.

What he did is far away from the pejorative definition of spin. This has all been explained. The DI is relying on the ignorance of its supporters.

I leave you with one fact: Ignorance can be cured with information as we've presented today. Stupidity (as in purposely remaining in ignorance) is forever. Please do not leave yourself in the latter category. Read the posts explaining how the legal system works, and realize that what the judge did is completely normal. Read my post #70 to see where judges even let the winning side completely write court orders.

[highball]

Wow.

Will you at least admit that he's insisting that the word be re-defined to suit his own goals?

[GourmetDan]

As is the DI's statement as far away from the perforative definition of spin as you claim Judge Jones.

Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?

[highball]

The DI is relying on the ignorance of its supporters.

To date, they have not been disappointed. Even here, among people who ought to know better.

[highball]

Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?

Any argument is transferable when dealing with a group for which words don't mean things.

[GourmetDan]

"Will you at least admit that he's insisting that the word be re-defined to suit his own goals?"

Wow.

My understanding of what Behe said is easily recognized.

Will you at least admit that you insist on misrepresenting Behe so that you can have an argument?

Behe wasn't re-defining anything. He was just talking so far above everyone's head that it was impossible for them to understand. Not difficult these days but still easily seen once it's pointed out.

Apparently, neither Judge Jones nor the vast majority of evos have (1) the critical-thinking skills to understand what Behe was saying and (2) the honesty to admit their error once it's made obvious.

[RunningWolf]

From observations, I would say that they do not want to understand what he says (nor anyone else that might be a threat to their ideology)

[GourmetDan]

"From observations, I would say that they do not want to understand what he says (nor anyone else that might be a threat to their ideology)"

Just add it to the list of obvious truths that will be denied until death.

[highball]

Will you at least admit that you insist on misrepresenting Behe so that you can have an argument?

Behe wasn't re-defining anything.

I have done no such thing. I quoted him at length, in context. I misrepresented nothing.

He admitted under oath that he wanted to expand the definition of "scientific theory" to inlude notions that were disproven, discarded and untrue. No debate there.

[antiRepublicrat]

Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?

Absolutely not. Condensed: A judge decided a case and did a common thing when writing the decision. Notice in the article, "was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to Jones..." The text was proposed, and the judge mostly accepted, as is common practice. Nothing shady here, no intent to deceive, all perfectly straightforward and on record.

Note that if you dig down into the DI's own report, you will see this little disclaimer:

Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.

Their press release, which is all that most people will read, conveniently doesn't contain the above disclaimer. It instead tries to portray the copying as a misdeed of the judge with quotes like this:

"The new disclosure that Judge Jones' analysis of the scientific status of ID merely copied language written for him by ACLU attorneys underscores just how inappropriate this part of Kitzmiller was

That is negative spin, while the judge just did business in the open as usual. He may have copied more than is normal in a decision (as opposed to order, which as I have shown the lawyers often write in their entirety), but there is absolutely nothing legally or ethically wrong for a judge to do that.

In other words, the DI is being a sore loser and blowing a lot of hot air about nothing.