It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, i didn't realize how bad the situation was either. it's incredible to see how the one former member of the school board reacted to the judge's decision "he's a (expletive deleted)"
and how things happened in the first place
including them using PERJURY
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by shoran
yeah
you know, it's kind of odd... none of the creationists/"IDists" have commented on this thread yet....
Originally posted by shoran
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Interestingly enough, I also just learned that the Discovery Institute plagiarized a video that Harvard made on the inner workings of the cell. They took Harvard's video, stripped out the copyright information and narration, added their own "pro-Creationism" narration, and then put the video out as their own. That's a big no no. I'm glad that it was Harvard's video, though; the top law school in the country.
There's definitely nothing intelligent about intelligent design. They should rename it something like, "We believe people are too stupid to understand complex things. So instead, we've attributed everything to magic, and feel that answers all our questions."
In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.
Originally posted by cre8id
Were you this upset when it was demonstrated that federal judge John Jones in the case copied his "masterful ruling" almost directly from the ACLU? See Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars www.discovery.org...
As to the current dilemma of the Discovery Institute and plagerism, I will wait and see what 'evolves'... If they are truely guilty of knowingly plagerizing, then I would agree they should be punished... I'd like to see more facts first, however.
Originally posted by shoran
Originally posted by cre8id
Were you this upset when it was demonstrated that federal judge John Jones in the case copied his "masterful ruling" almost directly from the ACLU? See Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars www.discovery.org...
I'm not familiar with it. However, I'm not "upset" about anything the Discovery Institute does aside from spread ignorance and stupidity. But, plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of who is plagiarizing whom.
As to the current dilemma of the Discovery Institute and plagerism, I will wait and see what 'evolves'... If they are truely guilty of knowingly plagerizing, then I would agree they should be punished... I'd like to see more facts first, however.
Here you go
Originally posted by melatonin
In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.
creationsafaris.com...
In evaluating the article linked above, it is essential to note that the NOVA documentary was actually focusing on the events of the Dover trial, and had little to do with whether Darwinism is science (which it is), but the religious nature of ID and the school board's motivations were most definitely relevant.
So, essentially, the rest of the article is poop. This was a landmark case, it has thrown out teaching ID in the science classroom, just like it's ugly sister - biblical creationism.
Science classes are for science, not religion.
And the second post on Judge Jones' ruling is just more BS from the DI. This is what 'proposed findings of fact' are for in such cases, the judge accepted the argument from the opponents. The cdesignproponentsists lost.
Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
Rule 14.5D Proposed Findings of Fact.
At or before the hearing, the petitioner shall provide the Court with proposed findings of fact, in separately numbered statements, which are necessary for the grant of the relief requested. The findings shall be incorporated in the proposed final decree.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
Heh, so a Shrub-appointed conservative judge is now an activist.
Using 'Proposed findings of fact' is normal in court decisions. It took me 2 mins to find this for one court in the US:
Rule 14.5D Proposed Findings of Fact.
At or before the hearing, the petitioner shall provide the Court with proposed findings of fact, in separately numbered statements, which are necessary for the grant of the relief requested. The findings shall be incorporated in the proposed final decree.
linky
OK, see, they will be 'incorporated in the decree'. If the judge wanted to use all of the findings of fact, that's cool, indeed they 'shall be' used in some way. It's not an issue.
Even when a judge adpots the 'proposed findings of fact' without any other ruling, it has been found to be acceptable.
The DI are spinning more BS, and you are just spouting the party-line. Wesley Elsberry even showed that it's only 38% of the whole ruling from the 'proposed findings of fact'
austringer.net...
~ www.discovery.org...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 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 Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. 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.
...
However, a new analysis of the text ... 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. ...
Judge Jones’ extensive borrowing from the ACLU did not end with the words of ACLU lawyers. He even borrowed the overall structure of his analysis of intelligent design from the 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. ...
The DI are some of the biggest liars and hacks you could find, but lying for jesus is acceptable, no?
Originally posted by cre8id
I have written a couple of emails to Casey Luskin, Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His response so far indicates that, "...to my knowledge, Discovery Institute has neither authorized nor received nor is making use of any presentation that used that animation. We have had nothing to do with creating or selling a DVD of that animation, nor do we have anything to do with placing that presentation on Google Video."
Originally posted by cre8id
If he was biased against ID, yes.
...
Again, yes, it is an issue if the judge is predjudiced in the case to start with. The main issue that DI makes is one of bias... the copying of such a vast majority of the ACLU paper does make one pause.
DI does NOT say it is 90.9% of the whole ruling. Even your link which disputes the 90.9% figure gives at least a 66% match FOR THE PORTION in question. Here is what DI said
Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU.
So NOW who is distorting the truth?
No, lying for Jesus is not acceptable, but apparently distorting for Darwin is.
Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
As to DI, they tried to support the case on behalf of the local school board members trying to defend ID in the classroom, but they were not the instigators of the case. No matter what my personal feelings about who the school board members are or their motivation, it appears activist judges have stretched the legal system to new totalitarian lengths to brand people as being "guilty" or "innocent" of violating the establishment clause because of their beliefs... that would have been news to Thomas Jefferson who, as president, approved federal funding to buy Bibles and send Christian missionaries to the native Indians.
But if beliefs are motives to establishment, are atheists guilty of trying to set up a secular state and perhaps murder millions because of Stalin or Chairman Mao? No. Are Darwinians guilty of extreme eugenics because Hiter justified his bigotry with social Darwinism? No. IDist are NOT the same as creationists no matter what has been ruled and ID does not require that the designer be supernatural, although that would be the logical and ultimately necessary inference in a universe of finite time and space.
Of course, if someone really wants to know what the Discovery Institute thinks of teaching ID in schools, one should go to the horse's mouth insted of listening to flatulence from the other end. Go to www.discovery.org... and download the PDF file of their "Briefing Packet For Educators" which states. "For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should
be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly
opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v.
Dover case. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
that any information you present accurately convey the views
of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
in indoctrination, not education."