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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-239 next last
To: editor-surveyor

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.


61 posted on 12/12/2006 11:44:43 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"Book only says they (the moon and sun) became visible (ruled the night for navigation, if you will) after the plants (already created from the earth, of course) cleared up the previously toxic and opaque atmosphere."

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.

62 posted on 12/12/2006 11:46:37 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ndt

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)


63 posted on 12/12/2006 11:47:25 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"The DI is lying by removing context and relying on the ignorance of its supporters not to catch it -- or even reject it when the proper context is shown, as is apparent here."

Nope, the DI is telling the truth that its opponents do not want told.

Therefore the need to characterize them falsely.

64 posted on 12/12/2006 11:47:58 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Riight. No disagreement.

They were created from the earth. Just as the moon was formed from the collision of a large object and the earth.

Neither was "created" (as we think of it) from nothing, their matter already existed. But they could not be seen until the plants cleared up the atmosphere.

Then again, I could argue that this means that plants (now thought to be "only" 3 some-odd billion years old) were actually already present before the moon's collision at around 4 billion some-odd years ago.

We shall see. Science has been wrong before in confirming what the Book already said.
65 posted on 12/12/2006 11:51:31 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"Too bad that 'party A' proved nothing. "

Sour Grapes.

"A secularist, empty suit judge simply said "my friends win, nya nya nya..."

LOL You mean the Lutheran Republican Judge John E. Jones III appointed by George W Bush? And did you just say "nya nya nya"? How old are you?

"I know you don't understand, so trust those of us that do"

O ya, you sure know what your talking about d/a
66 posted on 12/12/2006 11:55:27 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
God bless the Discovery Institute for their tireless efforts to publish the truth about the inability of the judicial 'process' to recognize what science is and what it is not.

Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute has a real handle on science!

(If only mainstream science would listen to my theory!!!!)

67 posted on 12/12/2006 11:55:43 AM PST by Quark2005 (Incredulity doesn't make facts go away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
"Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute has a real handle on science!"

Oh yeah, Judge Jones has a real handle on science!"

68 posted on 12/12/2006 12:01:27 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: highball
who went looking for a school district foolish enough to provoke a lawsuit. They couldn't get their program in schools on its own merit, so they decided to use the courts.

That is exactly how they introduced "evolution" into our schools to begin with, isn't it?
69 posted on 12/12/2006 12:06:25 PM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
Hmm. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks.

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.


70 posted on 12/12/2006 12:09:34 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Oh yeah, Judge Jones has a real handle on science!"

Jones' decision was to leave science to scientists. A good one.

Biological scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution.

71 posted on 12/12/2006 12:10:53 PM PST by Quark2005 (Incredulity doesn't make facts go away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Nope, the DI is telling the truth that its opponents do not want told.

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.

72 posted on 12/12/2006 12:11:44 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
A foolish statement from someeone known for foolish statements; I'm dazzled! Get back to your garbage truck before it gets ripe.

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.

73 posted on 12/12/2006 12:13:08 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Book only says they (the moon and sun) became visible (ruled the night for navigation, if you will) after the plants (already created from the earth, of course)

You realize that this also means the Earth was created before the Sun, right?

74 posted on 12/12/2006 12:13:53 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Nooooo. 8<) (Thought I went through this already.)

Everything was created first. Without form or substance, of course.

Then light (condensed), then matter, then the matter condensed into what we now call the planets and cosmos.

Planet, atmosphere, and (one) ocean were formed - stars too as a matter of course. Plants were formed from the earth - so evolution is NOT rejected by Genesis - it is PREDICTED and required by Genesis.

What you're assuming is the "creation" of the sun and moon is what actually only occurred when they became visible after the plants cleaned up the atmosphere. Until then, they were not visible, and not not be used for navigation and light. Alternate position - and perhaps even more correct, is that the first plants are going to found to be older than the moon.

Either view yields the same point: how did these itinerant shepherds wandering the dessert before numbers, zeros, and logarithms and powers-of-ten were invented figure out there was only one continent and one ocean..... When they KNEW from observation and trade that there were many oceans and seas, and many continents?
75 posted on 12/12/2006 12:38:56 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
His ruling will be overturned I hope.

It won't be overturned. The school board got voted out, remember? The new board isn't appealing.

76 posted on 12/12/2006 12:40:01 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

actually, judges routinely have the prevaling attorney write the court order.

What surprises me is that nobody pickup up on this earlier.


77 posted on 12/12/2006 12:47:19 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
A shopped-for (liberal) judge

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.

78 posted on 12/12/2006 12:47:57 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
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.

79 posted on 12/12/2006 12:48:57 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: highball

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.


80 posted on 12/12/2006 12:56:38 PM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-239 next 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