__k-review

As might be expected, Darwinists are in a tizzy about the discovery that Judge John Jones copied virtually verbatim 90.9% of his analysis of whether intelligent design is science from ACLU laywers. Of course, most are rallying valiantly around Judge Jones, that “outstanding thinker” who produced a “masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking” and who “is as deserving of the title ‘great thinker’ as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of music criticism.”

But not everyone has joined the party. Pro-Darwin biochemist Larry Moran has noted his disillusionment with the over-the-top praise fellow Darwinists lavished on Judge Jones:

On December 12, 2006, Discovery Institute released a report which found that “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’.” Since that time, we have received questions from various media sources and members of the public. This backgrounder on the report will help answer some common questions: Why is this report important?The section on whether ID is science is the most celebrated and expansive portion of the Kitzmiller opinion, which Judge Jones hoped would have an impact on future courts. As constitutional law scholar Stephen Gey said, “the critique of ID and science is the most important part of Read More ›

The egregious case of copying text from plaintiffs’ attorneys by federal judge John E. Jones has drawn additional criticism from legal scholars who explain that such copying should be scrutinized and carefully examined.

Yesterday Discovery Institute released a report revealing that the key section of the widely-noted court decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover intelligent design case was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers.

“Discovery Institute is on solid ground in pointing out Judge Jones’ highly questionable practice in this case,” said Bruce Green, an attorney with the Center for Law and Policy. “While having no legal bearing at this stage, it is highly frowned upon by the federal judiciary for a judge to adopt wholesale the findings and conclusions of a party without making a case for independent investigation demonstrated in the record.”

The Associated Press and WorldNetDaily are both reporting that Judge John Jones has refused to respond to Discovery Institute’s study showing that he copied nearly verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word analysis of whether intelligent design is science from a document submitted to him by ACLU attorneys. Someone should ask Judge Jones why he is suddenly so reticent to talk about his ruling. During the past year, he has traversed the country to speak at public events and talk about his ruling at length, usually before friendly audiences. But now someone raises the uncomfortable fact that he copied the central part of his ruling from the ACLU, and mum’s the word.

Later this month Discovery Institute Press will publish a new book examining the misguided attempts of some conservatives to embrace Darwinism and champion it as compatible with conservative views. Most conservatives are presumed to be critical of Darwin’s theory, yet a number of thinkers on the right, such as George Will, James Q. Wilson, and Larry Arnhart, have mounted a vigorous defense of Darwinism. Discovery Institute Senior Fellow John West will explain in Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest that the attempts to reconcile conservatism and Darwinian biology ultimately misunderstand both.

Saturday, August 26th at 7pm EST C-SPAN’s BookTV will air “Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision”, featuring two of the book’s authors, John West and Casey Luskin. The program will air again Sunday, August 27th at 6:30am EST and Monday, August 28 at 12:00am EST. The featured event was held at Discovery Institute’s office in Washington D.C. for Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision, the first book-length critique of Judge John E. Jones’s ruling in the Kitzmiller case, the first court case to assess the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The event, held at Discovery Institute’s office in Washington, D.C., was full, (as was a similar one in Seattle at Read More ›

(Part II, Version 1.0)By Casey LuskinCopyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here …Yesterday, I posted Part I of this response. To reiterate, there are three primary problems with Judge Jones’s ruling that Ken Miller refuted Michael Behe’s arguments that the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex: Yesterday I posted sections addressing parts (A) and (B). Today I will continue with the response, expanding on Part (C): (C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell: “Dr. Behe’s prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, Read More ›