Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The Discovery Institute points out some interesting facts...

In my Behe lecture review, I mentioned that Judge Jones used quite an extensive ‘cut and paste’ technique in his final decision in the Dover trial.

Today, the DI has posted a comparison of Judge Jones’ opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial with the plaintiffs’ proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” document. You can read about it at their blog, Evolution News & Views. This post links to the actual 34 page comparison document as well.

From the DI’s document summary:
In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design 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.

However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision 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 supplied 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 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.

Um....wow! 90.9%! Good grief!