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)
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.
"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?
Thanks, CM.
If I get the time today I'll look through the links and let you know if I can find it.
And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*.
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.
"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."
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 :-)
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.
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.
...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.
Thanks for picking that up.
There are lots of folks that, if you don't give up the gold, will give you lead!!!
Details!!!!
At LEAST we don't Quote Mine!!!
--EvoDude
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.
It just adds more proof of their true motives.
The Judge is probably a member of DC.
He'd fit right in with those closet Liberals.
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.