Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 12, 2006 | Art Moore

Posted on 12/12/2006 8:52:13 AM PST by 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."

(Excerpt)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolutionism; id; idiocy; idjunkscience; whereistheresearchdi; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-239 last
To: xzins
I'm interested in the basic assertion: was his ruling roughly 90% or so of the ACLU brief?

If nothing else, it says he liked their brief.

But what about the basic fact: is the 90% number true?

An analysis can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

Some trial documents can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents.

The court record is also on file in pdf format at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but the website is clutzy and difficult to use.

Decision: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf

The Defendants' (26 pp) and Plaintiffs' (161 pp) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are out there somewhere (I downloaded both them in the past), but I can't find an easy link for you tonight. You might try searching the case number 4:04-cv-2688 and rooting around a while.

221 posted on 12/15/2006 9:27:32 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: 49th

"Newton was also a fervent alchemist and spent virtually his whole career after the Principea seeking the "Philosophik Mercury" and trying to turn lead into gold."

The way you state this makes it clear that you don't have a clue about how scientific discoveries are made. You sneer at Newton because we know now that lead can't be turned into gold, but Newton was doing the chemical research of his day. No, he wasn't as successful at chemistry as he was at physics, but considering that he is the greatest physicist of all time, I'll give him a break.

As for argument from authority, you missed the point. I never said that anyone should believe in ID because Newton did, but I meant that you should try to understand *why* Newton believed in ID and said so in no uncertain terms. So did Pascal, Pasteur, Maxwell, Henry, Kelvin, and Faraday, by the way, most of whom lived *after* Darwin's theory was well known. Recognize any of those names, genius? I suppose they are all "IDiots," eh?


222 posted on 12/15/2006 9:46:50 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks, CM.

If I get the time today I'll look through the links and let you know if I can find it.


223 posted on 12/16/2006 4:55:03 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: 49th; RussP
The fact that Newton was "in awe of the Creator" is an argument from authority (which Newton actually isn't in this case) and is a logical fallacy.

And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*.

224 posted on 12/16/2006 5:32:34 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: 49th; RussP; RunningWolf
49th: He was also (by all reports) a jerk ....

RussP: Most modern evolutionists don't have a clue about the history of science, and they routinely piss on the legacy they inherited from.

And here we have a prime example.

225 posted on 12/16/2006 5:36:31 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 49th

"And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*."

Not only that, but the idea that they would object to the "argument from authority" is laughable. That's their primary argument.

How many times have you heard them resort to the claim that the scientific "consensus" is on their side? That is precisely the "argument from authority."


226 posted on 12/16/2006 11:55:14 AM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Newton emphasized in no uncertain terms his awe at the Creator and the Creation

Many scientist do so...

I think you missed the point about the force equation. Note that F = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt

No, I didn't miss it. But Newton would be really annoyed that you used Leibniz' notation to make his point :-)

227 posted on 12/16/2006 1:24:45 PM PST by si tacuissem (.. lurker mansissem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: RussP
How many times have you heard them resort to the claim that the scientific "consensus" is on their side? That is precisely the "argument from authority."

In addition to the 150 years of science to back it up that we keep being told about. We're supposed to believe that something with that long a track record has weight. If that's not *argument from authority*, I don't know what is.

228 posted on 12/16/2006 2:03:09 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The Mystical Priests of Materialism just love the sounds of their own words. No one is smarter. No one is more knowledgable.

So naturally when the intellectually lighweight Judge Jones simply and unoriginally spat their own fatuous words back at them, they fell on the ground and writhed in orgasmic delight. "What a Solomon! What a MIND!"

LOL! That's how a third-rate legal mind became the toast of the Ivy League science establishment.

229 posted on 12/16/2006 2:11:27 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And actually 150 years is not really anything to crow about esp. with all the 'in-controvertible overwhelming evidence' that has been quietly tossed out, the re-formulating and re-jiggering thats been required to keep toe afloat
230 posted on 12/16/2006 2:24:39 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*

...and most logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with formal logic. They're simply made up by the skeptical community. Trust me...I've spent enough time with them to know this firsthand.

By the way, if it means anything, I want to commend you on how you handle yourself on this forum.

231 posted on 12/16/2006 11:33:52 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

Comment #232 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; APFel; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; AnalogReigns; ...

Thanks for picking that up.


233 posted on 01/16/2007 8:08:01 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


234 posted on 01/16/2007 9:51:03 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: 49th
Newton was also a fervent alchemist and spent virtually his whole career after the Principea seeking the "Philosophik Mercury" and trying to turn lead into gold.

There are lots of folks that, if you don't give up the gold, will give you lead!!!

235 posted on 01/16/2007 9:55:26 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: RussP

Details!!!!

At LEAST we don't Quote Mine!!!

--EvoDude


236 posted on 01/16/2007 9:57:09 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

This pretty much confirms what I said at the time.

It's a sad situation when the Darwinists go running to the ACLU and tyrant judges to hang onto their monopoly in the public schools.

At the time, everyone on the Darwinist side said that this was a "conservative" judge. Oh, sure, and pigs are flying, too.

If Darwinism is so confident in its correctness, maybe it could face a little honest competition from other theories. But evidently the Darwinists just can't stomach competition, so the go running to the activist judges just like all their leftist friends, and use the law when science won't work.


237 posted on 01/16/2007 10:00:47 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

It just adds more proof of their true motives.


238 posted on 01/16/2007 10:11:07 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

The Judge is probably a member of DC.
He'd fit right in with those closet Liberals.


239 posted on 01/16/2007 5:16:33 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-239 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson