Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?

The Dover decision was rife with bad luck. A higher court probably would have at least moderated Jones’s decision; but unfortunately appeal was impossible here. Higher courts tend to be more responsible.

Isn’t Jones the one who said that his was “manifestly NOT an activist court”?
Yet he was taking his marching orders from a manifestly activist organization?

Your take on Judge Jones concerns me Mr. Dembski. Here a judge listens to the evidence, makes a judgement in agreement with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented by the ACLU. Now suddenly he is a narcissitic putz!?! Just a few months ago you had agreed to make an effort to conduct yourself in a more honarable fashion. What would JESUS do? Would JESUS resort to name calling? I don’t think so. I know my comment won’t get posted, becasue anything that disturbs your equilibrium never seems to find its way onto your blog. Just one more sign of the weak platform you stand on.

“What would JESUS do?”

I’m guessing NOT side with the ACLU on anything. If this entry is correct, then what Jones did is essentially the same as a high school kid copying an essay from an encyclopedia, then changing a few words to make it look like he didn’t copy it from an encyclopedia.

“Would JESUS resort to name calling?”

Maybe you haven’t read the Bible?

“I know my comment won’t get posted, because anything that disturbs your equilibrium never seems to find its way onto your blog. Just one more sign of the weak platform you stand on.”

I am imagining this.

This case bothers me mostly because it suggests that Judge Jones didn’t put much effort into considering this case honestly and objectively. To simply adopt the ACLU’s argument in this fashion suggests (to me, anyway) possible corruption… a deal between ACLU and Jones. Or at the very least, like I said, that Jones simply didn’t put any thought whatsoever into the arguments put forth by the defendants, and simply accepted “uncritically” the plaintiff’s argument. I agree with Patrick that it’s not plagiarism in the usual sense, as certainly the ACLU lawyers were thrilled that they were permitted to write the Judge’s decision for him.

For Hooligans: Obviously, Jesus would have called a “spade” a “spade” as necessary, witness Matt. 23:27 as just ONE example:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. ”

TRoutMac

“hooligans” wrote:

“Your take on Judge Jones concerns me Mr. Dembski.”

He is Dr. Dembski. A man that has an earned Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago *and a second* earned doctorate in philosophy from the University of Illinois, and has done postdoctoral work at the University of Chicago and MIT (no less!) in research of chaos and probability theory certainly holds the academic title, “Doctor.” He most certainly demolishes anything you have to offer in the academic realm (spare us any lies that you work at NASA or other sort of nonsense).

But yet again, this demonstrates the personal hate and prejudiced dislike of anti-intelligent design hacks — it is a religious and philosophical issue to them and nothing but — and the facts be damned. Dr. Dembski is committing heresy and he must be stopped according to these neo-Darwinian fundamentalists. Telling a little (or not so little) lie for Darwin is all too common.

“hooligans” further blurted:

“Here a judge listens to the evidence, makes a judgement in agreement with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented by the ACLU.”

To those that actually read and comprehended Dr. Dembski’s concerns, that is the entire point. Judge Jones did *not* listen to the evidence and make a judgment in agreement with the paper submitted by the ACLU — he simply lifted the content of the ACLU paper and used it as “his decision.” A material difference. It’s something a putz would do.

“hooligans” further admitted his ignorance:

“What would JESUS do? Would JESUS resort to name calling? I don’t think so.”

This is about Intelligent Design theory, not about “what would Jesus do”? He may as well ask, “What would Martha Stewart do?” It simply has no bearing on anything to do with the discussion.

And really, “putz”? Is “hooligans” really shocked by the reading of such a word? I’m sure he had to hold himself back quite a bit and not use the words he typically does all day, everyday.

In any case, Jesus wouldn’t resort to “name calling” (i.e., insults)? Interesting.

“hooligans” added “I don’t think so.” Why just “think so”? The New Testament is readily available, he could have just taken the time to check his facts. But that is something he evidently is not accustomed to doing.

It simply demonstrates the fact that, yet again, the pop-level critics of Intelligent Design are typified by being completely ignorant of the issues, unfamiliar with the literature and simply uninformed hacks. The repeated spelling errors likewise don’t particularly speak well for his level of literacy.

So what about “hooligans” and his informed “I don’t so” concerning Jesus never “calling someone names” or offering insults?

“Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1)

That wasn’t really a sweet compliment.

His audience caught on that he wasn’t offering them sweet compliments:

“One of the experts in the law answered him, ‘Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.’ ” (Luke 11:45)

The Greek word used in the text is *hubrizo*, which means “treat in an arrogant or spiteful manner, mistreat, scoff at, insult.”

The examples are replete throughout the Gospel accounts.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

Certainly a bit more biting than “putz”. And it came from Jesus.

The “plagiarism” doesn’t bother me too much. As a political science major, I can testify that judges are legally permitted to copy from the briefs that are submitted to them.

My problem is two-fold. First, while copying is okay, when you copy 90.9% of another person’s document, you haven’t thought for yourself. Even if you agree with someone else, you should explain why you agree–not merely copy their arguments. (Any high school or college student can tell you that).

Second, Judge Jones was so careful about copying that he copied over many factual errors, as the report points out. Again, any high school or college student could tell you that you need to check what you’re writing (or copying!) with the facts.

Even if I didn’t plagiaize a paper, if 90.9% of my paper was quoted from other sources and those other sources were often factually incorrect, I would fail college–not become a federal judge.

Brood of vipers, narcissistic putz, what’s the difference?

hooligans

A. It’s “honorable,” not “honarable.”

B. It’s DR. Dembski, not MR. Dembski. Dr. Dembski has TWO PhDs–one in Philosophy, one in Mathematics. Which, coincidentally enough, is usually two more PhDs than his most vocal detractors ever seem to possess.

C. If you seriously believe that what Jesus would do is support a judical decision that flies in the face of free expression and serious scientific debate, I suggest you pop out a New Testament and re-read the words of Jesus before making any further poorly-considered estimates of what he would or wouldn’t do. As I recall, he said something about the truth setting you free. Censuring debate via judical fiat seems contrary to that notion.
D. If Judge Jones is a narcissistic putz, you have no basis for assuming that he wasn’t one before Kitzmiller v. Dover, thus no basis for assuming that his descent into putzdom was sudden. Dr. Dembski’s appellation is, at worst, indelicate. However, its accuracy hardly seems in question.

When I was a lad, long ago, I played baseball. When beaten by an opposing team, we would often complain about the unfairness of it all. We would accuse the other team of cheating, being lucky, or just generally being the scum of the earth. Our coaches would tell us to shut up, stop whining, improve our game and beat them next time.

Generally, I am a supporter of ID’s cultural goals, but I found the above to be good advice.

Blessed are the whiners, for they shall inherit the earth. I don’t remember that one.

Last year on a Xian debate forum, I called Jones a fraud, a braindead twit and insinuated mis-dealings if not outright bribe.

Everyone, including other IDists, reprimanded me for this. “How dare I?”, they said. ” His decision was right”, said some christian darwinists - an oxymoron in my view.

Fine, but here is the evidence I believed would come sooner or later. It just din’t “smell” right.

I hope, Christian IDists will stop being such over-polite wimps and start being more like Christ who called hypocrites by their name and even took a whip to swindelling profiteers.

I’m glad to see Dr. Dembski calling this guy a putz - he deserves it.

“He…makes fools out of judges” - Job 12:17

I too played sports as a lad. If the game is played–and officiated–according to the rules, bj’s advice is sound. Suck it up and get ‘em next time. However, what is a baseball player to do when the playing field isn’t level? The doc referenced above is fascinating not only that it shows the similarity between the ruling and the findings of fact, but in the errors of fact that Jones either made or was unaware of. And so the data seems to support not that he is narcissistic, but that he is intellectually lazy, or perhaps disengaged. Either way, this is a significant indictment of a sitting federal judge.

“A pisher nudnik with a schlock spiel. Talking out of his tuchus like some kind of shamus.”

LOL! I don’t know what it means, but it sounds funny as… Also, I’m glad to see a little political correctness fall by the wayside. If he acted like a “schlemiel” o “putz” or whatever, he deserves to be called that. He can defend himself if he wants to.

“He can defend himself if he wants to.”

Or, he can have the ACLU pen a defense on his behalf. Whichever.

TRoutMac

SteveB,
“I too played sports as a lad. If the game is played–and officiated–according to the rules, bj’s advice is sound. Suck it up and get ‘em next time. However, what is a baseball player to do when the playing field isn’t level? The doc referenced above is fascinating not only that it shows the similarity between the ruling and the findings of fact, but in the errors of fact that Jones either made or was unaware of. And so the data seems to support not that he is narcissistic, but that he is intellectually lazy, or perhaps disengaged. Either way, this is a significant indictment of a sitting federal judge. ”

My coaches were old school. These days, I don’t know who is more juvenile in little league sports, the kids or their coaches and parents. My coaches didn’t care what had happened on the field in the past, even if it was unfair. They just knew that whining was immature and poor preparation for what was coming next-more games. My judgement is that there has been too much whining about the Dover result, and that this whining is no way to prepare for the future.
Just my opinion.

You had to know something was up when Judge Jones said that ID relied on the supernatural when the ID experts testified that it did not.

His twisting and spinning Dr Behe’s proposed experiment (bac flag) was another clue.

As I read his decision I was wondering just what strawman he was ruling against.

hooligans — did Jesus resort to name calling? Um, yes. “…you brood of vipers … you white washed tombs … full of dead mens bones …”

What Bible are you reading Mr hooligans ?

A schlemiel is similar to a schmendrick. An example would be a person who let’s people walk all over them and always comes out the loser in relations with people, a bungling loser. A schmuck is a person who creates problems for others, a jerk. So a better word for JJ would be schmuck.

My coaches were old school.

You are right. Players do not complain about the refs. However, incompetent refs did and do exist. League administrators would eventually recognize them as such and they would soon have to be finding other weekend or after school work.

Judge Jones is clearly incompetent, and, sadly, he is a lot more damaging and a lot harder to get rid of than a bad ref.

Putz is good, it’s a less biting version of schmuck.

William Dembski wrote,

. . .courts frown on decisions in which judges extensively copy and paste from other briefs — which is exactly what Jones did!

Yes, this is true. This is what the Supreme Court said in United States v. El Paso Gas Co.:

A trial judge’s findings will stand if supported by evidence even where they are not his own work product, United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 , but such findings are less helpful on judicial review than those prepared by the trial judge himself.(emphasis added)

– and –

[ Footnote 4 ] Judge J. Skelly Wright of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently said: “Who shall prepare the findings? Rule 52 says the court shall prepare the findings. “The court shall find the facts specially and [376 U.S. 651, 657] state separately its conclusions of law.’ We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. This has been denounced by every court of appeals save one. This is an abandonment of the duty and the trust that has been placed in the judge by these rules. It is a non-compliance with Rule 52 specifically and it betrays the primary purpose of Rule 52 — the primary purpose being that the preparation of these findings by the judge shall assist in the adjudication of the lawsuit. “I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won’t be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case.” Seminars for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (1963), p. 166. (emphasis added)
– from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....651#656%22

One thing we now know for sure — Judge Jones was falsely given credit for a lot of stuff that he did not write. And Jones did not even bother to check the record to make sure that the ACLU material that he was going to use was factually accurate.

Not all of Jones’ cutting and pasting of the ACLU briefs was just technical stuff (some people have been claiming that Jones’ cutting and pasting of the technical stuff is excusable because he is not a scientist). Jones wrote in the conclusion section of the opinion,

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. (emphasis added) -from http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....sion3.html

For comparison, here is what an ACLU brief said:

351. In order to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause, and Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is necessary and appropriate to enter an order enjoining defendants from implementing their biology curriculum change, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to an alternative theory known as “intelligent design.” (emphasis added) — from http://www.talkorigins.org/faq......html#p497

For the following reasons, I am especially troubled by the prohibition against “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution”:
(1) The words “disparage” and “denigrate” are ambiguous in this context.
(2) This prohibition could be applied to scientific criticisms of evolution that were not reviewed by Jones (Jones reviewed only ID).
(3) This general prohibition appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”
(4) This prohibition was not even included in the order at the end of the opinion, showing that Jones just absent-mindedly copied the entire above section of the ACLU brief and changed a few words in a feeble effort to make the section appear to be original.

Sorry for the long-winded comment, folks — but most of it was just cut and pasted.

Guys, guys. Let’s calm down about all of this. It is highly probable that we are simply living in one of the universes in which the original thinking expressed by Judge Jones accidentally matches up with the wording of the ACLU lawyers. Improbable things happen all the time.

We have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Judge Jones simply cut-and-pasted. You IDiots are always trying to perceive design where none exists. It’s tiresome.

“Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?”

He could be both, but I have my suspicions.

“it is necessary and appropriate to enter an order enjoining defendants from … requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution”

Wow. Does any other academic field exist whose position is so inherently weak that it must make this sort of appeal to judicial fiat for its legitimacy? I can’t think of one.

“NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Judge Jones simply cut-and-pasted. ”

Fair enough. He cut and pasted… and then made a few superficial edits. Did you read the original document?

Two points…

First, if you want a judge to grant a particular decree or order, chances are the form you’ll have to fill out to make this happen, will be the decree or order itself, with the particulars filled in by you, for the judge to look over and sign. This saves the judge time and effort (and the taxpayers money), enables him/her to hear more cases, and makes the process fair and consistent by ensuring that all instances of a particular decree or order read the same way and say the same things.

Second, even Dembski admits that only one particular part of the decision was “90.9 percent” lifted from the ACLU. This press release admits the truth but is worded in such a way as to imply (to those who don’t read carefully) that “90.9 percent” of the ENTIRE RULING was “plagirized.”

Third, I see nothing in this post that actually refutes or debunks the points that Judge Jones supposedly stole from someone else; nor does anyone even try to make a case that the pasting results in a less-than-coherent ruling.

Fourth, if Judge Jones had to paste text from the ACLU, it’s probably because he’s reinforcing a point that the ACLU have lots of experience making and explaining – you know, like, something that’s been obvious and true for a long time.

Fifth, pasting or no pasting, a judge is expected to make a ruling based on evidence, testimony, reasoning, and findings brought forth in the trial, so it shouldn’t be surprising when said judge repeats that information when he explains his judgement. What do you expect him to do — reword everything and base his ruling on his new interpretation? Get information from his favorite blogger instead?

Okay, that’s more than two points – so sue me…

“It is highly probable that … the original thinking expressed by Judge Jones … matches … [that] of the ACLU lawyers. Improbable things happen all the time.”

Talk about shooting your own argument (and axioms) in the foot! (or perhaps feet!?)

Answering Raging Bee

1. This was a trial that was supposed to be about determining the legitimacy of the Dover school districts use of a single phrase. It was not supposed to be about the science of ID or evolution, it was supposed to be about if alllowing criticism of evolution was going against the separation of church and state. What the judge did was to take the position as official arbiter of the legitimacy of ID as good science and then make a plagiarized comment on that. Thus showing that not only was he going beyond the scope of the trial at hand but also that he didn’t actually research the legitimacy of what he copied (he missed the factual errors)

2. You can intepret what he wrote anyway you like, but nowhere does he state the judge’s entire opinion was a cut and paste. Then if you read the PDF it clearly says right at that start :

“Infact,90.9% (or5,458words)of JudgeJones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the
ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions o fLaw” submitted to Judge Jones
nearly a month before his ruling.”

3. The judge copied factual errors made by the ACLU, those errors are spelled out. As far as coherency see my first answer. The judge wants to play the grand inquistor out to claim that ID is scientific heresy. That wasn’t what the trial was supposed to be about.

4. The ACLU are lawyers who have an agenda to win their case. They are not unbiased scientists out to seek the truth about evolution or ID. As lawyers out to win a case they are not interested in truth (as is shown by the errors) but rather like most all lawyers they are out to win at all costs, by hook or by crook. The judge obviously didn’t check to see if what he was copying was factual, thus showing his prejudice in favor of the ACLU’s position and not acting as an ubiased seeker of truth i.e. what his job required.

5. His ruling was supposed to stick to the issue at hand, it wasn’t supposed to be a diatribe against ID and a glorification of the perfection of evolutionary theory.

mentok
This was a trial that was supposed to be about determining the legitimacy of the Dover school districts use of a single phrase. It was not supposed to be about the science of ID or evolution,

Perhaps the defense should not have made the scientific legitimacy of ID a major point in their arguments then.

From the defendant’s opening statement:

Defendants’ expert will show this Court that intelligent design theory, IDT, is science, [...] It is not religion.

My previous post (28) was, of course, in jest.

Franky172 since the trial was about the establishment clause:

“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

That language is about restricting congress from making laws that give preferential treatment to a specific religion. It was the duty of the defense to argue that ID was not a teaching of a church, that it is not a religion, but rather that it is a scientific dissent from darwinism. Otherwise how can you argue agaisnt the claim that mentioning ID is going agasint the establishment clause? What the judge did was to judge the legitimacy of the science of ID. When in fact all he was supposed to do was rule whether or not the mention of ID was a going agaisnt the constitution where it bans preferential treatment by law of a religion.

For example the defense had to argue that ID is a scientific dissent from darwinism while the ACLU tried to argue that ID is bad science and an establishment of religion. The judge should have ignored the matter of bad or good science because that was irrelevant to the case. Instead he turned that into the centerpiece of his opinion. What was relevant was whether or not ID is a religion. What that showed was that he was not making a decision based solely on the constitutionality of mentioning ID, but was instead trying to use the court, the power of the U.S. law, to discredit the scientific basis of ID. He was promoting darwinism, he wasn’t protecting the constitution, he was an advocate for evolution, not an advocate for american law.

It was the duty of the defense to argue that ID was not a teaching of a church, that it is not a religion, but rather that it is a scientific dissent from darwinism.

So now you agree that the scientific nature of ID was in fact on the table at Dover, and that the defense attorneys brought it forward, and in fact had one of their main arguments that “ID is science”.

I agree, and so, evidently did the defense (more from their opening statement):

Dr. Minnich will testify that IDT is science,
[...]
Dr. Fuller will testify that intelligent design is science,
[...]
Taken together, this expert testimony will confirm the defendants’ judgment by showing that intelligent design theory [...] is science.
[...]
Indeed, the evidence will further show that intelligent design theory is really science in its purest form,

So, if the defense argued that ID was science, and the prosecution argued that ID was not science, how, exactly, could Judge Jones make a ruling on the merits of the case without finding fact for either of the cases put forth?

I look forward to reading more tomorrow.

What was obvious to me is that Judge Jones saw that the Dover School Board was very suspect indeed and instead of limiting his judgement on them, he took it upon himself to rule against ID.

It should be noted that the plaintiffs did not present any facts that would demonstrate that ID is not science.

It’s simple. The defense had to argue that ID was not religion, that’s all. The other side had to argue that ID was religion, that’s all. The claim that ID was not science or that is was bad science was irrelevant. Everything else was irrelevant. The defense could have argued that ID was philosophy or astronomy or sewing, it doesn’t matter what ID is or isn’t as long as it is not religion. What the claimant did was to argue that ID is bad science and that allowing mentioning of ID is establishment of religion. The court is not there to decide the curriculum of a school based on the subjective or objective nature of what is truth or fact or wrong or non factual taught in that curriculum. That is the job of the school board and the local and state government. The judge clearly was an advocate for evolution and was using the court to preach evolutionary dogma and to denigrate the scientific nature and basis of ID. That was hailed as some kind of historic and great deed when in fact it actually showed the overstepping of bounds by the judge and his misuse of the media interest in the case to preach evolution and denigrate ID. It was a classic case of misuse of judicial perogatives for purely political and religious reasons. He should have been lambasted by the press and by any non biased commentator for his decision to portray the case as a battle between evolution and religion and between evolution and ID. All it was supposed to be was about whether or not ID was a religion, nothing more. What he did was install evolution as a state protected belief system on the origin of species which in denying God as the origin is in fact an establishment of a religion. That was clearly unconstitutional and foolish. Yet he is assailed as some kind of intellectual hero when what he ended up doing was the exact opposite of what he claims to have done. He installed a state protected ideology, a monopoly, on the origin of species and of humans (religious territory to most people) and disallowed dissent.

Folks, I spend 13 years as a litigator in a major firm, and now I teach law. I think Judge Jones’ ruling about whether ID is “science” was unnecessary. However, you are barking up the wrong tree here. Trial judges routinely use portions of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties — it is exactly why the parties are asked to submit them. Calling this “plaigiarism” is misplaced, because the ethical rules govering scholars and journalists regarding giving credit to sources simply don’t apply in this context. A judge is supposed to decide cases based on the facts presented by the parties. Forget about this one — this dog won’t hunt.

It is hard to shake the label of “activist judge” when you copy your decision verbatim from ACLU documents.

doperdeck if the judge copies the supposed “facts” of a party which are not in actuality facts but rather outright lies and misrepresentations then what does that say about the that judges opinion? If I argue a case and present numerous “facts” in a written form which are not actually facts but instead lies and misrepresentations, and then I win the case, should the judge then simply repeat those lies and misrepresentations as part of his “insight”?

There are two problems with most of the previous posts and with Dr Dembski’s original post.

First, many people condemn bad spelling, and secondly, we all assume that design detection can be applied in real life to detect plagiarism.

As the detection of spelling errors also relies on design detection, both these assertions are religious and not science and should not be allowed.

Judge Jones is safe. The Design Inference is obviously a religious idea, and the constitution will protect JJ and all future judgements from such criticism.

Long live the American legal system, that also found OJ was innocent.

By the way, we in Australia have almost the exact wording about establishing religion yet our government financially supports religious schools, and the teaching of ID or religion for that matter, is allowed and even funded in public schools. Funny how the meaning of specific law speciates through geographical isolation. This proves unintelligent evolution is true.

The more I learn about how the legal system works, the less I respect it.

The copying and pasting might be fine enough, but it came from documents presented a month before the evidence was presented.

Now at least it begins to make sense the way he seems to have utterly not heard much of the testimony.

It means the trial was a charade.

Profoundly interesting, important and not widely known testimony was falling upon deaf ears.

I think he should be disbarred, or impeached.

chunkdz,

“Brood of vipers, narcissistic putz, what’s the difference?”

A little less than 2000 years.

avocationist said ( Dec 13th 2006 at 2:33 am ) –

The more I learn about how the legal system works, the less I respect it.

The copying and pasting might be fine enough, but it came from documents presented a month before the evidence was presented.

Not true — the copying and pasting came from documents presented after the end of courtroom testimony. An example is the following document —

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/al.....88-334.pdf

– the same document in html format is at –

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf.html

I think he should be disbarred, or impeached.

I’ll drink to that (attorneys are disbarred, federal judges are impeached).

“Long live the American legal system, that also found OJ was innocent.”

LOL! Yes that’s an excellent point. JJ recites ACLU talking points and OJ goes free after murdering two people. I just can’t wait until jury duty time.

doperbeck:
Trial judges routinely use portions of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties — it is exactly why the parties are asked to submit them.

One has to wonder what facts can be found in Judge Jones’ ruling. One fact I found was that he is still clue-less as to what ID is.

It’s simple. The defense had to argue that ID was not religion, that’s all. The other side had to argue that ID was religion, that’s all. The claim that ID was not science or that is was bad science was irrelevant.

Actually, according to my understanding of the Lemon test, an act must pass three tests to ensure that it does not violate the establishment clause:

1. It must have secular legislative purpose.
2. It’s effect must not inhibit or advance religion
and
3. There must be no “excessive entanglement” with religion (whatever that means).

Obviously for the purposes of the 1st part of the Lemon test, declaring ID to be “science” enables the act of the school board to have secular legislative purpose and thus pass the first part of the Lemon test. I believe this is why the Thomas Moore Law Center, ACLU, and Jones all believed this was paramount to the case.

Certainly the Thomas Moore Law Center could have taken some other route and suggested that the secular legislative purpose of the school board was some other pressing need, but what?

The judge should have ignored the matter of bad or good science because that was irrelevant to the case. Instead he turned that into the centerpiece of his opinion.

That’s because the plaintiffs (not the judge) used the fact that ID was bad science to prove that it was, in fact, a NOTHING MORE than a religious belief badly disguised as science. If ID had been proven to be real science, then its religious origins would have been irrelevant.

And the quickest proof that ID really is a religious doctrine can be found in an early draft of “Pandas:” anyone here remember the famous phrase “cdesign proponentsists?” Think about that before you complain about “plagirism.”

The judge copied factual errors made by the ACLU, those errors are spelled out.

Where? Given the utterly idiotic hysterical hyperbole I’ve seen about the ACLU from places like this, the above statement lacks credibility.

BJ said something earlier about whining and being prepared for the next time.

However I believe an open discussion of past follies are key to being prepared for the next time.

For example we now know not just appear to target evolution. This is easily done as we all know the design inference extends beyond biology.

Make it clear that ID proceeds as if the Torah, Bible and Qu’ran don’t even exist- even though their mere existence constitutes evidence. IOW don’t conflate any inferences derived from the theory with the theory itself.

Basically keep the following in mind:

“(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’” Justice Lewis Powell in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard

So we take a page right from Southern California- all incoming high school freshman are to assemble and watch two pro-ID videos- “The Privileged Planet” and “Unlocking the Mytery of Life”.

Following which Andrea Bottaro’s rebuttal* will be read along with a pro-ID response (in-process but anyone can jump in).

Then get on with the school year but ALLOW open discussions of the data presented.

If some wants to argue that Stonehenge is a formation due to stochastic processes- allow them to make their case.

“Turtles all the way down…”, make your case.

Living organisms are the result of the random mixing of elements, compounds and lightning strikes- make your case.

By allowing them to make their case they may see for themselves, which is the first step to developing critical thinking skills.

* the only real way to rebut the contents of either video and actually demonstrate our existence is the result of sheer-dumb-luck. Mere blather and finger-pointing will not ‘git-r-dun’…

Raging Bee:
That’s because the plaintiffs (not the judge) used the fact that ID was bad science to prove that it was, in fact, a NOTHING MORE than a religious belief badly disguised as science.

Reality tells us the plaintiffs erected a strawman, sold it to the judge, who bought it, then destroyed that starwman in front of him.

The judge, thinking the strawman was ID, then over-stepped the boudary of this case to make a sweeping ruling that was irrelevant to the case he heard.

If the judge had REALLY wanted the facts about “Pandas” he would have allowed the publishers to enter the case. Or at least he would have considered their brief.

As it is he listened to only what the ID critics had to say about ID, accepted a bluff as actual evidence and discarded everything the ID experts said about ID.

And I believe he did that because he knew the school board didn’t have a clue to what ID was, had religious motivations and acted deceptively.

However the same can be said about the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

Dave,

Please don’t get me started on wordly definitions…, I noticed how this past week, Theist Evolutionist can find all things wrong with ID, IDers, YECs, but not say one single word against Krause and the conference by NAS in recent post.

They routinely “disparage” IDers, and YECS, but not the atheist scientist who mocked and scoffed @ Christians. Not one single word to defend the 15% of Christians, nor to demand apology by fellow atheist scientist for their attacks of comparison of pedophiles to Christians.

re: plagerize and peers who try to fit in.
You see, it is not “plagerizing” as long as the ACLU does not care and other Judges and lawyers do it too. Judges must save time afterall and should not bother to read, spellcheck, nor fact check what the lawyers hand to them in a ruling decision.

Its all “part of the game” you see.

They all met up I’m sure after the decision over cocktails, cigars and schmoooooozed with each other. Laughing, mocking and jestering how yet again with money from the likes of George Soros, they Bamboozled innocent everyday people trying to make a difference in their childrens lives who wanted to offer serious alternatives of discussion to their children. Not that paying taxes means anything at all about the rights of citizens these days.

Eventually I am sure the Judge asked the ACLU how their case with NAMBLA is going and if they could use any help!

But you know, guilt by association is only a one-way street. Only pedophile, Republicans and Christian Scientist can be connected. Not ACLU, Democrat Atheist Scientist. No, they take a much higher road based upon the truth of materialism.

That is how and why plagiarism is redefined today.

Therefore good is evil and evil is good.

idnet.com.au said,

“By the way, we in Australia have almost the exact wording about establishing religion yet our government financially supports religious schools, and the teaching of ID or religion for that matter, is allowed and even funded in public schools. Funny how the meaning of specific law speciates through geographical isolation. This proves unintelligent evolution is true.”

Thank you! And this is how our system of government should work as well mate. There is no such thing as “seperation of church and state” in our constitution.

It is one BIG FAT LIE! Our society caved in to politically correct atheism. So now you have Chritians paying taxes for a system that does not represent them fairly in government.

Therefore We the People are no longer Self Governed.

But they are ruled over by ACLU and a few Judicial systems.

Why they ever bought into it I do not know. But as a child raised in the secular system, I was taught no different.

In fact, I was LIED to because of Judicial decisions forced onto me by Communist inspired organizations like the ACLU.

You would think that All Christians would see this and fight it. We have a right to demand how our tax dollars are spent. Judges, lawyers and the Federal Government Serves We the People, not the other way around.

Joseph wrote:

However I believe an open discussion of past follies are key to being prepared for the next time.

That’s funny — there’s nothing in your “open discussion” about actual scientific work supporting ID or disproving evolution. Seems to me that’s where a discussion of “past follies” would start.

Make it clear that ID proceeds as if the Torah, Bible and Qu’ran don’t even exist…

Y’all have been talking about ID for DECADES; so why do you have to make this clear now? Could it be because ID is, and always has been, based on those religious texts?

…even though their mere existence constitutes evidence.

Oops, you did it again. IF ID is science, then it shouldn’t have to even consider religious texts as “evidence” — this is science, not religion, remember?

DaveScot, quoting the Encarta Encyclopedia, said: Another lawyer to tries to argue this isn’t plagiarism. How quaint.

Dave, the problem with your quote from Encarta here is that trial judges don’t claim that their opinions are “original” in the sense that a journalist or schoalar does. Trial judges are supposed to recite in their opinions the evidence presented at trial. That is their job. It isn’t plagiarism. You may think the common law legal system is “quaint,” but it has worked this way for centuries. Please, if you’re going to criticize the way judges do their jobs, at least try to understand what they do, rather than cuttting and pasting irrelevant Encarta definitions.

Some folks have dickered about whether the ACLU’s proposed findings of fact were presented before or after trial. It doesn’t matter.

It is common practice in many federal courts for the parties to present detailed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law before trial. This is one way in which federal trial courts manage their dockets — this practice helps weed out issues on which a trial is not really necessary either because the parties essentially agree or because an issue a party wants to raise is irrelevant to the claims asserted.

It also is common practice for judges to request additional submissions after trial, depending on the testimony and evidence actually adduced at trial.

Finally, it is common practice for trial judges to adopt language from a party’s submission in whole or in part when framing a written opinion.

As far as I can tell, based on 13 years of experience litigating in the federal courts, absolutely nothing Judge Jones did in writing this opinion can fairly be called unethical or nefarious. This is an unfair, uninformed criticism.

Others have suggested Judge Jones got the facts wrong. That may well be the case. It is fair to criticize the accuracy of a court’s factual findings if they are not supported by the record. Still others (including me, in other places) have criticized Judge Jones’ effort to define what “science” means. That, again, is a fair criticism based on the issues that were actually before the court and the proper role of judges.

The suggestion that it was inherently improper for the trial judge to use a party’s proposed findings of fact, however, is simply wrong.

However I believe an open discussion of past follies are key to being prepared for the next time.

Raging Bee:
That’s funny — there’s nothing in your “open discussion” about actual scientific work supporting ID or disproving evolution.

There is actual scientific work supporting ID. And disproving evolution is NOT what ID is about. (evolution has several meanings)

Raging Bee:
Seems to me that’s where a discussion of “past follies” would start.

I prefer to keep my discussions “in context”. The context of this thread is the past folly of Judge Jones’ decision and how to make sure, or try to, that it isn’t repeated.

Make it clear that ID proceeds as if the Torah, Bible and Qu’ran don’t even exist…

Raging Bee:
Y’all have been talking about ID for DECADES; so why do you have to make this clear now?

Because people like you exist. People who, when there hear “ID” automatically think “religion” regardless of what reality demonstrates.

…even though their mere existence constitutes evidence.

Raging Bee:
Oops, you did it again. IF ID is science, then it shouldn’t have to even consider religious texts as “evidence” — this is science, not religion, remember?

Man that is twisted. Those books are evidence regardless of ID. Also those books can be viewed as historical and philosophical documents. People just formed their respective religion around them.

56. Raging Bee said,

“That’s because the plaintiff’s (not the judge) used the fact that ID was bad science to prove that it was, in fact, NOTHING MORE than a religious belief badly disguised as science.”

ID makes no assumption that a deity is the designer. Even if you infer that, ID is