Science Reporting

During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions:

1. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?
2. Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
3. Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?
   The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.

I. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?

Professor Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe Univerity has followed up his fine analysis of the Selman case with an equally insightful analysis of the Dover decision. According to Knippenberg, Judge Jones’s conclusions about the law depend upon a rather unsophisticated understanding of philosophy and theology. If ever there were need for a case study to demonstrate how the practice of law ought to rest on a foundation of liberal learning, Judge Jones’s opinion here would provide it.

Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article Read More ›

Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here.

It’s becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of “facts” in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong—even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn’t even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.