Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Aermacchi

---

"By the smug look on the face of the cartoon character in your avatar,

it suits you"

Lol... should watch the venture brothers, it is all about crushed dreams and failure. Mean spirited yet light hearted at the same time. Pure comedic gold.

Suits indeed.

Going to mosey on to other threads, maybe a nice planet X/ 2012 one. I find myself staring in awe at the donuts the logic spins.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by atoms.2008

ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.

I disagree, and here is the proof.



Have fun.

In December of 2005, defenders of Darwinian evolution hailed federal judge John E.
Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover,1 which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement
about intelligent design (ID) in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since
the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a
“masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence:
ß According to University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert, Jones’
ruling is a “masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking.”2
ß According to pro-Darwin lawyer Ed Darrell, “Jones wrote a masterful decision, a
model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented.”
Indeed, Jones’ ruling is “a model of law... a model of argument... a model of legal
philosophy... [and] a model of integrity of our judicial system.”3
ß According to Scientific American’s editor John Rennie, Jones’ opinion constitutes “an
encyclopedic refutation of I.D.” 4
ß According to plaintiffs’ expert witness, Southeastern Louisiana University
philosopher Barbara Forrest, Judge Jones’ ruling is “a marvel of clarity and
forthrightness.”5
ß According to Time magazine, the ruling made Jones one of “the world’s most
influential people” in the category of “scientists and thinkers.”6
ß According to bloggers at the pro-Darwin Panda’s Thumb website, Jones’ decision is
an important work “of both scholarship and history,”7 and Jones himself is “a topnotch
thinker,”8 “an outstanding thinker,”9 someone who “is as deserving of the title
‘great thinker’ as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of
music criticism.”10
The underlying theme in these comments is that Judge Jones should be recognized for his lucid
analysis and mastery of the factual record, especially when it comes to his determination that
intelligent design is not science.
However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision seriously undercuts the
idea that Judge Jones’ decision was “a masterpiece… of scholarship” produced by “an
outstanding thinker.” It reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of
“whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording
written for him by ACLU attorneys.
In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent
design as science was taken verbatim or virtually verbatim from the proposed “Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones by ACLU attorneys nearly a month
before his ruling.11
Jones essentially cut-and-pasted the ACLU’s wording into his ruling to come
up with his decision. (For examples of Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s wording, see Table A.
For a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Jones’ language with the language in the ACLU’s
proposed “Findings of Fact,”

ACLU. The ACLU organized its critique of ID around six main claims, and Judge Jones adopted
an identical outline, discussing the same claims in precisely the same sequence. (For a
comparison between the structure of Jones’ critique of ID and the ACLU’s critique, see Table B.)
In addition, Judge Jones appears to have copied the ACLU’s work uncritically. As a
result, his judicial opinion perpetuated several egregious factual errors originally found in the
ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” For example:
ß Judge Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when confronted with articles
supposedly explaining the evolution of the immune system, replied that these articles
were “not ‘good enough.’”12 In reality, Behe said the exact opposite at trial: “it’s
not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a
different subject.”
13
(emphasis added) The answer cited by Judge Jones came not
from Behe, but from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact,” which misquoted
Behe, twisting the substance of his answer.14
ß Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or
publications.”15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise.
University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are
between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID,16 and he specifically
discussed17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article18 in the peerreviewed
biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Additional peer-reviewed publications, includingWilliam Dembski’s peer-reviewed
monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press),19 were
described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications
supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of
the case by Judge Jones.20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed
publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings
of Fact.”21
ß Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,”22 that “ID is predicated
on supernatural causation,”23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly
by a … supernatural, designer.”24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert
witnesses acknowledged this point.”25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did
nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by
Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU,
ID proponents—including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial—
have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a
supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design
requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It
does not.”26
(For a list of false statements Judge Jones adopted from the ACLU, see Table C.)
Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and
judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose
findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the
case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.
4
Nonetheless, the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by
the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly
the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this
central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or
independent examination of the record on Jones’ part. The revelation that Judge Jones in effect
“dragged and dropped” large sections of the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact” into his opinion, errors
and all, calls into serious question whether Jones exercised the kind of independent analysis that
would make his “broad, stinging rebuke”27 of intelligent design appropriate.
We and others already have criticized Jones’ effort to decide the scientific status of
intelligent design as a needless and inappropriate exercise of judicial power.28 As we explain in a
forthcoming law review article, when Judge Jones described the breadth of his opinion as being
the result of a “fervent hope” that it “could serve as a primer for school boards and other people
who were considering this [issue],”29 he admitted (apparently without realizing it) that he was a
judicial activist.30 Even Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs
that “[t]he part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not
particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of
religion.”31 The new disclosure that Judge Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of ID merely
copied language written for him by ACLU attorneys underscores just how inappropriate this part
of Kitzmiller was—and why Judge Jones’ analysis should not be regarded as the final word about
intelligent design.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Aermacchi

---

Uh-huh.

Please show evidence that the judge was in any way being improper/corrupt/loss of integrity.

I hope its more than simply the fact he quoted briefs-which all judges do. When they accept the argument submitted they read it into record.

Whats your take on the rest of what I said? About all the witnesses for ID being hacks. That was all OK because the judge was an 'activist' whatever that actually means?

FYI in the above I see nothing improper on the judge. They can only rule on what was presented.

Otherwise, I wont accept photobucket comparrison as some sort of evidence. Theres nothing to show who even put it together.

(edit, additional question)

Where was the rest cited from? looks biased as it uses inflammitory words that belie an agenda.



[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

--edit-- Just saw the bit about calling me a liar, though I made no false statements, simply asked for proof. I am not really sure this debate is worth bothering with anymore

if thats the level of desperation you descend to.