__edited

Two local newspapers which serve the Dover area have published articles making the same mistake when attacking Discovery Institute’s report, which found that 90.9% of Judge Jones’ section of the Kitzmiller ruling on whether intelligent design (ID) is science was copied verbatim, or near verbatim, from the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The York Dispatch has two articles — an editorial and a news article, each of which rely upon ACLU attorney Witold Walczak justifying Judge Jones’ copying by saying, “This is something lawyers do routinely, precisely so judges can use them.” It should come as no surprise that Mr. Walczak is defending a ruling which copied a brief he probably helped write. The York Daily Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: A single article combining all ten installments of this response to Barbara Forrest can be found here, at “Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account.” The individual installments may be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10.] This short, long-awaited final installment of the response to Barbara Forrest will note that she may have misplaced her praise of Judge Jones regarding the Kitzmiller ruling. In her Kitzmiller response, she wrote that Judge Jones’ ruling is “a marvel of clarity and forthrightness.” Of course she’s entitled to her opinion, but perhaps she should have given more credit to the ACLU, who contributed greatly to the Read More ›

In his commencement speech at Dickinson College, Judge John Jones said: “Each day as a federal trial judge . . . I am at risk of deciding a case incorrectly if I accept that which is presented to me at face value.” (Emphasis added.) Judge Jones’ statement is ironic in light of his decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which he appears to have copied incorrect facts supplied by the ACLU attorneys without having his clerk check those facts against the actual evidence in the record. I understand that federal judges and their staff are busy. However, given how important — indeed, even historical — Judge Jones believes the Kitzmiller case to have been (just ask him), one Read More ›

WorldNetDaily is covering the Judge Jones’ copying story, as is the Associated Press, The York Dispatch, and the AgapePress (note: the last article inacurrately states that we are faulting Judge Jones for “plagiarism,” which we aren’t; he copied extensively from the ACLU, but in judicial circles that would not be called plagiarism).

The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with Discovery Institute.

“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Last week Michael Behe spoke at Kansas University as part of a series of “Difficult Dialogues,” with various speakers on the topic of intelligent design. There is an excellent report on Behe’s talk at Reasonable Kansans Blog which has some highlights worth noting. Behe primarily discussed and critiqued the Kitzmiller ruling. (We will have more news about this and related issues dealing with how Judge Jones wrote his ruling tomorrow, so be sure to check back here.) The Immunology Literature Dump: Misquotes by Judge Jones: (As noted earlier, Discovery Institute will have more news about this and related issues dealing with how Judge Jones wrote his ruling tomorrow, so be sure to check back here.) Media Misquotes on Astrology: Reasonable Read More ›

Thanks to a notice by William Dembski at UncommonDescent, people are becoming aware that video footage of the “Beyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival” conference where scientists bashed religion at the Salk Institute is now online. A panel discussion, which included Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and Michael Shermer, discussed why as many as 15% of National Academy of Sciences (NAS) scientists believe in God. Tyson expressed surprise that the number was as high as 15%: Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the Read More ›

Update: The link to the American Prospect article has been fixed. Sahotra Sarkar has become a revisionist of the first order. Not even 12 months have gone by since the Dover ID trial and he’s already rewriting history in this web post for the American Prospect. Apparently, the whole argument for the fine tuning of the universe from The Privileged Planet, published in 2004, almost 2 full years before the Dover ruling, was just a reaction to Dover, and an attempt to subvert Judge Jones’s (may he live forever) ruling banning ID from Dover area classrooms. Won’t those stealth creationists Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez be surprised. Not to mention those poor creationists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. All this Read More ›

If you want to keep tabs on the debate that’s heating up in the U.K., there is no better resource than the News Blog on Truth in Science’s website. Current and concise, Truth in Science does an excellent job compiling all the latest information on the controversy over ID in the government and the media.

As today’s update explains, “Truth in Science is faced by growing political opposition as Members of Parliament and Government ministers seek to discourage science teachers from using our resource packs. Forty MPs are calling for a ‘restriction’ on its use and one has suggested a ‘directive’ against it.” In addition to this summary information, TiS provides the play-by-play of what some government officials are doing to try to stop the teaching of intelligent design in schools.

Yesterday’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer (P-I) ran an opinion article by guest columnist Cathy Young titled “Campuses would benefit from political diversity” which laments the lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses. Young, who is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine, supports academic freedom in universities for suppressed “politically incorrect opinions” but seems to oppose academic freedom for the oft-suppressed and politically incorrect theory of intelligent design. She explains that David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights” requiring inclusion of “balanced viewpoints” in college curricula is not the best solution because it could allow the teaching of intelligent design: Some conservatives advocate legislative interference as a solution. An advocate, David Horowitz, has been pushing for an “Academic Bill of Rights” that would Read More ›