Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 12, 2006 | Art Moore

[Coyoteman]

I'm interested in the basic assertion: was his ruling roughly 90% or so of the ACLU brief?

If nothing else, it says he liked their brief.

But what about the basic fact: is the 90% number true?

An analysis can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

Some trial documents can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents.

The court record is also on file in pdf format at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but the website is clutzy and difficult to use.

Decision: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf

The Defendants' (26 pp) and Plaintiffs' (161 pp) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are out there somewhere (I downloaded both them in the past), but I can't find an easy link for you tonight. You might try searching the case number 4:04-cv-2688 and rooting around a while.

[RussP]

"Newton was also a fervent alchemist and spent virtually his whole career after the Principea seeking the "Philosophik Mercury" and trying to turn lead into gold."

The way you state this makes it clear that you don't have a clue about how scientific discoveries are made. You sneer at Newton because we know now that lead can't be turned into gold, but Newton was doing the chemical research of his day. No, he wasn't as successful at chemistry as he was at physics, but considering that he is the greatest physicist of all time, I'll give him a break.

As for argument from authority, you missed the point. I never said that anyone should believe in ID because Newton did, but I meant that you should try to understand *why* Newton believed in ID and said so in no uncertain terms. So did Pascal, Pasteur, Maxwell, Henry, Kelvin, and Faraday, by the way, most of whom lived *after* Darwin's theory was well known. Recognize any of those names, genius? I suppose they are all "IDiots," eh?

[xzins]

Thanks, CM.

If I get the time today I'll look through the links and let you know if I can find it.

[metmom]

The fact that Newton was "in awe of the Creator" is an argument from authority (which Newton actually isn't in this case) and is a logical fallacy.

And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*.

[metmom]

49th: He was also (by all reports) a jerk ....

RussP: Most modern evolutionists don't have a clue about the history of science, and they routinely piss on the legacy they inherited from.

And here we have a prime example.

[RussP]

"And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*."

Not only that, but the idea that they would object to the "argument from authority" is laughable. That's their primary argument.

How many times have you heard them resort to the claim that the scientific "consensus" is on their side? That is precisely the "argument from authority."

[si tacuissem]

Newton emphasized in no uncertain terms his awe at the Creator and the Creation

Many scientist do so...

I think you missed the point about the force equation. Note that F = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt

No, I didn't miss it. But Newton would be really annoyed that you used Leibniz' notation to make his point :-)

[metmom]

How many times have you heard them resort to the claim that the scientific "consensus" is on their side? That is precisely the "argument from authority."

In addition to the 150 years of science to back it up that we keep being told about. We're supposed to believe that something with that long a track record has weight. If that's not *argument from authority*, I don't know what is.

[JCEccles]

The Mystical Priests of Materialism just love the sounds of their own words. No one is smarter. No one is more knowledgable.

So naturally when the intellectually lighweight Judge Jones simply and unoriginally spat their own fatuous words back at them, they fell on the ground and writhed in orgasmic delight. "What a Solomon! What a MIND!"

LOL! That's how a third-rate legal mind became the toast of the Ivy League science establishment.

[RunningWolf]

And actually 150 years is not really anything to crow about esp. with all the 'in-controvertible overwhelming evidence' that has been quietly tossed out, the re-formulating and re-jiggering thats been required to keep toe afloat

[csense]

And when evos can't win an argument any other way, everything becomes a *logical fallacy*

...and most logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with formal logic. They're simply made up by the skeptical community. Trust me...I've spent enough time with them to know this firsthand.

By the way, if it means anything, I want to commend you on how you handle yourself on this forum.

[editor-surveyor]

Thanks for picking that up.

[Elsie]

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[Elsie]

Newton was also a fervent alchemist and spent virtually his whole career after the Principea seeking the "Philosophik Mercury" and trying to turn lead into gold.

There are lots of folks that, if you don't give up the gold, will give you lead!!!

[Elsie]

Details!!!!

At LEAST we don't Quote Mine!!!

--EvoDude

[Cicero]

This pretty much confirms what I said at the time.

It's a sad situation when the Darwinists go running to the ACLU and tyrant judges to hang onto their monopoly in the public schools.

At the time, everyone on the Darwinist side said that this was a "conservative" judge. Oh, sure, and pigs are flying, too.

If Darwinism is so confident in its correctness, maybe it could face a little honest competition from other theories. But evidently the Darwinists just can't stomach competition, so the go running to the activist judges just like all their leftist friends, and use the law when science won't work.

[editor-surveyor]

It just adds more proof of their true motives.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The Judge is probably a member of DC.
He'd fit right in with those closet Liberals.