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)
Someday, both will plead their case to another Judge.
Who woulda thought?
And there won't be any judge shopping, either.
The scientific evidence is clear on the age of the earth. Many lines of evidence place it far older than 6,000 years. No scientific evidence places it even close to 6,000 years. The "young earth" idea comes entirely from religious belief, and an extreme minority belief at that.
PH's polls have proven that.
PH ran no polls. The poll you are erroneously thinking of was a FR poll, from which PH merely synopsized the results every day or so. (This is just another in your long line of mistakes.)
For the lurkers, here are a couple of excellent links.
PatrickHenry's List-O-Links (now the Un-Missing Links).Index of Creationist Claims in which several hundred of the most common misrepresentations of creationists are numbered and rebutted. I particularly like CA221.
Heresy, I tell ya. We just can't have that kind of nonsense going on in scientific and educational systems; all this *open mind*, *critical analysis*, and *careful consideration* kind of stuff. Sheesh, what's the world coming to?
He does seem to be pretty naturally mindless...
Your arguements are philosophical and certainly not scientific. Leave science to the experts so you don't hurt your head. Your own arguments are philosophical in nature and not scientific. Design, as your quote says, is an arguement. It is not science. The historical figures cited by Meyer viewed it as philosophy. But only you, and like minded anti-science theocrats, make such an absurd connection.
Philosophy should not exist in the ‘current’ view of evolution? Hmmm… How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy? Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed?
Creationsist quote mining is so disengenuous. Frankly, science is a subset of philosophy, but its the one that has advanced human knowledge by actually testing ideas, rather than simply arguing about them. So frankly, no, philosophy has no part in a scientific discussion because you are going outside the scope of science. Evolution just describes the way things happened with repect to changes in populations of organisms. If you want to go outside the paradyms of science go ahead, but then it isn't science. And arguing from that perspective simply shows a clearly luddite, anti-science perspective. If you want to live in a cave, I won't stop you.
If only he would post the same pictures and definitions over and over and over…
"You obviously haven't read the transcripts - the defense's star witness, under oath, admitted that ID is as scientific as astrology."
I think you (and Judge Jones) misunderstood what Behe was saying.
Well, I think that what Behe was saying is that for ID to be considered "science", the word would have to be defined down to include such things as astrology.
Cards on the table. What do you think he meant?
I think you (and Judge Jones) misunderstood what Behe was saying.
Well, I think that what Behe was saying is that for ID to be considered "science", the word would have to be defined down to include such things as astrology.
Cards on the table. What do you think he meant?
Be carefull, highball. People that believe in YEC creationism is science also believe astrology is science. After all astrology is real because the devil put it there to lead people away from God. It's real science they deny. They just can't grasp a subject that is orthogonal to religion.
What a laugh!
The 'lurkers' are are even more aware of the vacuousness of your house of cards links.
You really do think people are stupid, huh!
Yet quote mining from the ACLU is totally acceptable according to ‘your’ philosophy and you accept this as ‘fact‘ due to a ‘quote mining’ ruling?
Calling me a ‘luddite’ and accusing me of living in a cave while conversing on the internet and knowing nothing about me is beyond sad. You are avoiding questions and shooting in the dark at way too many unseen targets in the hope of hitting a response you desire.
Let’s try this again - How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy? Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed.?
What ACLU quote mining? You mean how prevailing arguments are traditionally copied into legal decisions in this county? There is nothing diingenous about that. Judges basically say they rule in favor of a party's arguments, then quote the arguments. This whole article is just typical discovery Institute arguments.
Calling me a ‘luddite’ and accusing me of living in a cave while conversing on the internet and knowing nothing about me is beyond sad.
Then don't post luddite arguments. Even the cave dwelling al-queda types (I'm not equating you with terrorism) use the internet.
Your question makes no sense. Youi align these subject the way you want and then challenge someone to deconstruct something that isn't connected except by you, or someone of like mindedness. No point in answering your nonsense. I personally reject your luddite arguments about science being to restritionist to the observable and testable. The proof is in the pudding. Science acheives and evolution is science in particularly good form.
As I stated before (on this same thread) - The opinion of this Judge, which turns out to be an ACLU ‘cut and paste’, has been applauded by many freepers. Fine, but explain how the ACLU are not just a group of cranks.
Even the cave dwelling al-queda types (I'm not equating you with terrorism) use the internet.
Why not equate me with terrorists? Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. do because of my philosophical belief in id.
Again - Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed.?
Thanks for the ping!
Why would he need spin? He agreed with their arguments. The only spin here is the DI playing on the ignorance of many of its supporters.
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.