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)
And just as well - the defense perjured itself enough even without them.
Judge Jones used ACLU documentation (including errors).
"Biological scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution."
Ah, truth by popular vote. Good for science and good for America.
Well then. Judge Jones 'spinning' the words of the ACLU as his own was a lie then wasn't it?
This whole "dust-up" is bogus.
My advice to you is to actually learn some real science for once. However, I already know that will not happen.
Sorry, whether you think they were created from nothing or made from existing material, the verse says they were 'made', not made visible.
"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.
Do you think that's why the Book says, "...and there was evening and morning..." so that you could fit billions of years in there?
"We shall see. Science has been wrong before in confirming what the Book already said.
And is wrong now. That's why you should not accept science first and the Book second.
I will put his REAL PhD up against you any day.
Judge Jones is a moron plagiarist and tool of the hard-core Communist Left.
I think you (and Judge Jones) misunderstood what Behe was saying.
"The only side to put forward a valid scientific analysis was the plaintiff."
Would that be the 'truth by popular opinion' analysis?
It's very common for judges to copy-n-paste sections from the parties' submitted briefs.
To paraphrase the 'sanitation' worker:
Evolution is to science what an Etch-A-Sketch is to a CAD program.
Evolutionists are to scientists what road-kill is to the Cordon Bleu.
My advice to you is that you should take your own advice.
You obviously don't realize that most people see through the fallacy of evolution easily. Only those given to believing the lie have difficulty with the truth.
Ah, let's see - truth by the consensus of professionals in a relevant area of expertise actually trained to analyze, interpret and review data properly, or truth by consensus of Gourmet Dan and the Discovery Institute. Tough call...
Do Catholics think God couldn't tell us what he really did but had to tell us a lie so that we would believe him?
"It says, for example, that life was formed from the earth: If God chose to do that by manipulating molecules and atoms, it's rather easier to believe that than that random lightning strikes somehow created life."
The Book says that he created animals to reproduce after their kind. Man says that isn't how it happened. The Book says God created the sun/moon one day after the plants. Man says that isn't how it happened. The Book says that woman came from man. Man says that isn't how it happened.
"(It's about time they caught up.)"
Have they?
I know what is common in court. I've given considerable expert testimony; sued, and been sued. What is not so common is a judge gullibly accepting the kind of rubbish that was accepted in this one.
No.
There is no such thing as Intelligent Design Theory, it is a hypothesis at most
It's neither. - It's a postulate that is supported by the entirety of the statistical domain.
Please demonstrate or prove if you can
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.