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)
It looks like the Discovery Institute's analysis was cut-and-pasted verbatim from Kent Hovind's 1990's tax returns. /sarcasm
The link at their site doesn't work.
Wrongo.
Book uses the same 'create' word for the sun/moon as it did for the beasts and man.
Now, if you think that the beasts and man only 'became visible' you might have a point.
Too bad that 'party A' proved nothing. A secularist, empty suit judge simply said "my friends win, nya nya nya..."
And yes, that has displaced honest judicial review in many courts, but that doesn't make it right. (I know you don't understand, so trust those of us that do, you're doing the best that you can with what you have)
Nope, the DI is telling the truth that its opponents do not want told.
Therefore the need to characterize them falsely.
Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute has a real handle on science!
(If only mainstream science would listen to my theory!!!!)
Oh yeah, Judge Jones has a real handle on science!"
Trust no one. Here's a portion of a transcript from a hearing in SCO v IBM on Feb 24, 2006:
THE COURT: Counsel, I'm prepared to rule in this matter. Looking at this case individually on its particular set of facts, I find that ... And, Mr. Shaughnessy, if you'll prepare an order as to that decision.[IBM attorney] MR. SHAUGHNESSY: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Now let's address the remaining motion... And I'm going to deny SCO's motion to compel at this time. ... Are there any other questions that need to be posed or should be posed and answers given, or is that clear?
MR. SHAUGHNESSY: I think that's clear. Would you like me to prepare an order on that, as well?
THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
Jones' decision was to leave science to scientists. A good one.
Biological scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution.
The opponents don't care if it's told in context. In fact, it's all public record in the first place, so it has been told already. The problem is the defamatory spin the ID is doing. Just as in my examples -- a spin of facts equals a lie.
No it isn't. Creationists have to lie. Let me tone that down. They frequently lie on top of manipulating real science into some Frankenstein monstrosity in order to mislead people. Creationist/IDers don't do any actual research. I'll get back to doing real research while you dig through that garbage truck for more 'evidence' of creationism or bias in this ruling.
You realize that this also means the Earth was created before the Sun, right?
It won't be overturned. The school board got voted out, remember? The new board isn't appealing.
actually, judges routinely have the prevaling attorney write the court order.
What surprises me is that nobody pickup up on this earlier.
What are you talking about? The judge followed precedent perfectly (which you would know if you actually read the decision). There's nothing liberal about that.
He said that it (cut-past w/ errors) seriously undercuts the credibility of Jones' examination of the scientific validity of the intelligent-design argument and it does.
No, it doesn't.
You obviously haven't read the transcripts - the defense's star witness, under oath, admitted that ID is as scientific as astrology.
The only side to put forward a valid scientific analysis was the plaintiff. The only side to lie in court was the defense. That the judge recognized those two facts in no way weakens his argument.
Two years later, some folks are still counting chads.
There was a time and a place when DI could have testified, but they chickened out. They demanded, as witnesses, the right to have attorneys present. Since the appearance of perjury was an issue in the findings, they were no doubt wise not to testify.
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.