Timothy Sandefur posted Entry 2761 on December 12, 2006 06:52 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2752

The Discovery Institute has put out a press release that is flabbergasting even by their standards.

In it, they breathlessly announce that

“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.”

Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.

The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,

There was a trial, and after oral argument the judge announced from the bench that judgment would be for appellees and that he would not write an opinion. He told counsel for appellees, ‘Prepare the findings and conclusions and judgment.’ They obeyed, submitting 130 findings of fact and one conclusion of law, all of which, we are advised, the District Court adopted verbatim. Those findings, though not the product of the workings of the district judge’s mind, are formally his; they are not to be rejected out-of-hand, and they will stand if supported by evidence.

United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 656 (1964). Accord, Ramey Const. Co., Inc. v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation, 616 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be acceptable under some circumstances.”); Norris Industries, Inc. v. Tappan Co., 599 F.2d 908, 909-10 (9th Cir. 1979). The only time a judge is not allowed to do this is when he or she fails to reveal the discerning line for his or her decision, which makes it difficult for an appellate court to determine the judge’s reasoning. Ramsey, 616 F.2d at 466. That was hardly the case in Kitzmiller.

The Discovery Institute is essentially complaining “Hey, the ID proponents failed to convince the judge of anything they were saying!” Sorry, but that ain’t a story.

Folks at The Thumb predicted this was coming after Michael Behe’s talk in Kansas not long ago, in which he spent his time claiming that Judge Jones was simply acting as a parrot for the ACLU. Now, remember, Judge Jones is a Republican Bush appointee, not exactly your biggest war-on-Christmas ACLU guy. What’s more, the DI’s claim that Jones’ opinion is “copied verbatim or virtually verbatim” is curious also. What does “virtually verbatim” mean? Either something is verbatim or it isn’t, and if it is only “virtually” verbatim, how do they count it in their 90.9% figure? If anything, the fact that these sections are not verbatim proves that Jones carefully went over each item of the proposed findings and deliberately chose to adopt those findings as his own—which he is supposed to do, when he finds that the plaintiffs have proven their case.

What’s hilarious about this complete non-story is what an obvious attempt this is at keeping alive a subject that has already been done to death. Like the wacky Larry and Richard, toting around the corpse of their boss, the Discovery Institute is trying hard to pretend that there is some life left in their portrayal of ID as a science unfairly persecuted by political schemers. They keep propping up the Dover case as proof of their status as censored visionaries. The press release claims that “A year after Dover, it’s the Darwinists who seem filled with gloom, not us,” but we still haven’t stopped partying over demolishing them in Kitzmiller. (You should see all the empty champagne bottles. Matzke’s gonna have a hell of a headache.) Meanwhile, ID creationism has been increasingly marginalized, and its defenders have grown increasingly desperate. Desperate enough to accuse Judge Jones of impropriety for following an obviously well-established legal procedure. Desperate enough to still be groaning over the licking they took a year ago. Desperate enough to portray a Republican Bush appointee as an “activist” pawn of ACLU lefties. Desperate enough to spend time figuring out percentages of similar-sounding words, rather than doing any, you know, research in biological science. Truly laughable.

This just in: actual video footage of West and Behe cleaning up Intelligent Design for its next court appearance:

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #149892

Posted by wright on December 12, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

Incredible. Just incredible. But then, as you say Tim, this is all they have left. The DI and other proponents of ID have no experimental evidence, no peer-reviewed articles, no nothing.

They’ve painted themselves into a corner and keep trying various convoluted positions to get out. When anyone else points out they still have paint on their shoes, they claim persecution…

Comment #149893

Posted by William E Emba on December 12, 2006 10:00 AM (e)

Timothy Sandefur wrote:

What does “virtually verbatim” mean?

I wouldn’t jump on this semantic point. It makes perfect sense to me. And while quantifying it seems utterly silly, such spurious statisticabafflegab seems to have become an entrenched technique of everyone, both the intelligent and the idiotic.

Comment #149894

Posted by IDiot Savant on December 12, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

Timothy Sandefur said,

The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case.

Judge Jones not only adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own, but – according to the Discovery Institute – copied those findings verbatim or nearly verbatim. The courts allow but discourage this kind of “plagiarized” or “ghostwritten” opinion. That same Supreme Court opinion that you cited, United States v. El Paso Gas Co., says,

A trial judge’s findings will stand if supported by evidence even where they are not his own work product, United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 , but such findings are less helpful on judicial review than those prepared by the trial judge himself.(emphasis added)

– and –

[ Footnote 4 ] Judge J. Skelly Wright of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently said: “Who shall prepare the findings? Rule 52 says the court shall prepare the findings. “The court shall find the facts specially and [376 U.S. 651, 657] state separately its conclusions of law.’ We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. This has been denounced by every court of appeals save one. This is an abandonment of the duty and the trust that has been placed in the judge by these rules. It is a non-compliance with Rule 52 specifically and it betrays the primary purpose of Rule 52 – the primary purpose being that the preparation of these findings by the judge shall assist in the adjudication of the lawsuit. “I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won’t be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case.” Seminars for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (1963), p. 166. (emphasis added)

– from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656%22

One thing we now know – Judge Jones was falsely given credit for a lot of stuff he did not write.

Comment #149900

Posted by PvM on December 12, 2006 10:55 AM (e)

Are they now blaming darwinists for everything?

In September, legal scholar Francis Beckwith, whose support for the constitutionality of intelligent design is well-known, was granted tenure at Baylor University after an effort by Darwinists to deny him tenure backfired.

I thought Beckwith’s tenure decision was influenced more by his conservative views on abortion

But to certain factions of the Baylor community his publishing accolades were unimportant. In the contemporary university one must not only be sharp to gain tenure, one must also hold certain political views. To some people at Baylor, Beckwith’s conservative views on abortion and other issues automatically disqualified him from the academic game regardless of how well he could perform.

Is this yet another example of ‘just so stories’ of ID?

Ed Brayton commented

He is caught up in an ongoing political and religious battle over the direction of Baylor University, and he represents the more orthodox religious side of things.

I thought that Beckwith’s tenure decisions had little to do with his position on ID

Comment #149902

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 12, 2006 10:57 AM (e)

Umm, IS, you ignored this sentence: “We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them.” The DI has not accused him of copying his conclusions of law. So your citation fails to support them. Furthermore, the DI’s calculation of ~90% is based on pretty liberal criteria. The same criteria that if applied to genomes would find that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are 100% “virtually verbatim”.

Comment #149904

Posted by Mike Elzinga on December 12, 2006 11:00 AM (e)

Apparently the reason ID lost at Dover was by design? Hmmm, their god is looking pretty malicious right now.

Comment #149907

Posted by waldteufel on December 12, 2006 11:28 AM (e)

The Discovery Institute is not about discovering anything. They are merely a propaganda dispensing machine.
Their writings are not meant for the science community, nor the legal community. Their writings are aimed at the gullible and ignorant.

To DI, it doesn’t matter that what they produce is drivel. What matters to them is that their gullible and ignorant target audience believes them.

Remember, the Discovery Institute’s target audience thinks that the “Flintstones” is a documentary …. .

Comment #149911

Posted by hooligans on December 12, 2006 11:52 AM (e)

Check out Dembski’s treatment of Judge Jones at UD, he likens Judge Jones to “a narcissistic putz.” I can’t tell you how discouraging I find Dembski. Frankly, it is hard not to resort to name calling myself. Dembski has shown himself, time and again, to be fearful of open conversation about his ideas, furthermore, he continually tries to protect UD from the obvious truth. Once again, rather than sucking it up, like a man, handling the harsh reality of ID as a failure he resorts to name calling and character assasination. How childish!!!!!

Comment #149914

Posted by mark on December 12, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

The York Dispatch has an item regarding this story (I’m sure they’ve been on the DI mailing list for a couple years now). The item ends by noting The ruling shocked some people because Jones is a Republican and a Lutheran who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, who has spoken in favor of intelligent design.

Comment #149916

Posted by Whatever on December 12, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

How can something so simple be so complicated for people to understand. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This seems pretty straight forward to me, in case you don’t understand I’ll simplify it for you. The government will not endorse any religion, however you are free to practice any religion you want. Sounds fair? This is the constitution we are talking about, that is the supreme law of the land. Don’t like it? Too bad, it’s been around longer than you. This simple amendment is why a conservative Bush appointee would make such a decision. Ohhh, but ID isn’t religion blah blah blah. WRONG! It’s very simple, science deals with natural phenomena only. There is no other possible explanation than a natural one, it’s the rules of scientific inquiry. Every piece of advanced technology and medicine is with us today because of the scientific process. ID’ers just want to throw it all out the window, and start explaining things they don’t understand with god…. or I mean Intelligent design.

Comment #149917

Posted by Larry Moran on December 12, 2006 12:32 PM (e)

I feel deceived. Read my comments at Judge Jones & the Dover Decision.

Comment #149919

Posted by Laser on December 12, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Reed, IS seems a lot like Larry Farfarman. The formatting of the post, the focus on legal issues about which he knows nothing, the willful bypassing of simple sentences that refute his claims…

Comment #149920

Posted by Mark Studduck, FCD on December 12, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

“Whatever”, your post above betrays either a willing dishonesty or marked misunderstanding of what is at issue in this aspect of the ID in the public schools fiasco.

Sighting the establishment clause and acting like it is so straightforwardly interpreted in the manner you imply is reckless and simply unfound.

The DI’s attack on Judge Jones is centered on his writing concerning whether ID is science or religion. The point of contention between ID and Anti-ID people on this issue is not whether a particular religious belief should be supported in schools, but wehther ID is a particular religious belief. That is, ID theorists really do think that they have removed any religious auxillary asumptions from their theory and that all it requires beyond your “science” is simply the admittance of intelligent agent causation as a detectable cause in the construction or programmiing of biological life forms.

ID theorists, like Behe, Dembski, and Meyer differ from PTA members and local parents on this. But this is due mainly to the sophistacted level of knowledge which differs among the two groups. The parents or school board in Dover appear to have had a religious agenda and chose to employ ID as a weapon. Their views and understanding of what ID is should not color the hypothesis as a whole.

When you say, “There is no other possible explanation than a natural one, it’s the rules of scientific inquiry.” As if you don’t even know that this is what this debate is centered on, am I and other readers here to interpret you as uninformed or disingenuous. (of course if other readers are like you and don’t care whether an assertion is actually founded but only with the strength of its rhetorical value in this debate, they won’t comment against your post or agree with me here, but sit by and let it have its effect.)

Lastly, the statement, “Every piece of advanced technology and medicine is with us today because of the scientific process. ID’ers just want to throw it all out the window, and start explaining things they don’t understand with god…. or I mean Intelligent design.” Is wrong on may levels. Much in the history of Science and technology is neutral towards this discussion and much of it actually flies in the face of your assertion. If you would like to discuss the meta-narratives employed by scientists, doctors, and designers of technology elsewhere I would love to go to town with you on your rhetorical blunder.

This section however is on the Judge Jones ruling. Which we now see was pretty much written by the ACLU and should not be interpreted as the work of someone who really sat and weighed the evidence presented before him. I’m sorry, but to us in the middle, Jones looks like a puppet.

MS

Comment #149921

Posted by DragonScholar on December 12, 2006 1:42 PM (e)

Hop on over to good old Uncommon Descent to see this headline that truly shows the intellectual strength of the ID movement:

Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz? by good Dembski.

In all seriousness, THIS is all ID has left. Attacking an individual judge for decisions made a year ago in a case they handled terribly, and bashing the judge for following procedure. They lost, got drubbed, got humiliated. They can’t let it go.

At times, I think rampant insecurity is a major trait of ID.

Comment #149922

Posted by Dave on December 12, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

Mark Studduck writes:

ID theorists really do think that they have removed any religious auxillary asumptions from their theory and that all it requires beyond your “science” is simply the admittance of intelligent agent causation as a detectable cause in the construction or programmiing of biological life forms.”

Umm, if that is the case, why do they persist in holding ID symposia in religious venues? If they are trying to convince scientists, they should go where the scientists hold meetings. And that would not include the Religious Studies department at Utah Valley State College.

Comment #149924

Posted by Raging Bee on December 12, 2006 1:54 PM (e)

If Judge Jones pasted text from other sources, it’s probably because he decided that their statements were relevant to the formation of his decision. What’s he suposed to do – base his decision on statements of people who were not parties to the case? Make up his own wording of what other people said, and base his decision on his interpretation?

A judge, being a judge and all, is SUPPOSED to base his decision on facts, testimony, evidence, and reasoning put forth in the trial. Pasting the statements he considered relevant, and/or the reasoning that won the day, isn’t something a creative artist would do, but – news flash! – Jones was functioning as a judge, not an artist.

PS: I’m inclined to agree with Laser – both IS and Mark Studduck sould like Larry Fafarman. Same incoherent hand-waving, same total irrelevance to the central issues.

Comment #149926

Posted by Raging Bee on December 12, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

Larry Moran: I read your post. I also read the comments so far, which you have yet to answer.

Comment #149927

Posted by Gerry L on December 12, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

The Seattle Post Intelligencer article (at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_PA_Evolution_Debate.html) has an ironic quote from the DI’s John G. West:

“‘It’s a masterpiece of cut-and-paste,’ West said,” referring to the Jones ruling.

Could it be that they’re jealous because their incompetent cutting and pasting contributed to their defeat in the courtroom?

Comment #149928

Posted by Coin on December 12, 2006 2:51 PM (e)

The Seattle Post Intelligencer article (at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_PA_Ev…) has an ironic quote from the DI’s John G. West:

“‘It’s a masterpiece of cut-and-paste,’ West said,” referring to the Jones ruling.

Could it be that they’re jealous because their incompetent cutting and pasting contributed to their defeat in the courtroom?

Wait, the AP picked this up? Okay, that’s just disgraceful. Is there anything that can be done to correct this disinformation in the press?

Comment #149929

Posted by Tim S on December 12, 2006 3:12 PM (e)

I find it very interesting that UD is showing an awful lot of religious material these days on its blogs. It really does not help their argument about the non-religious nature of ID.

Comment #149930

Posted by Michael Hopkins on December 12, 2006 3:25 PM (e)

They just keep on posting crap hoping on hope that something will eventually stick. The Discovery Institute is really desperate.

Comment #149932

Posted by bob on December 12, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

Anyone else noticed how long it’s taken ID to come up with this response? I guess ID has been reduced (possibly elevated…) to the guy who attempts snappy comebacks, but is always just a little too late, and with too little wit.

Secondly, if Judge Jones really did do something wrong, why not file an appeal. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure what they are implying the judge did is a reason to have the verdict overturned. Unless of course, ID’s attempts a law are like their attempts at science – quick to claim, but equally quick to avoid situations where their claims can be examined in detail by people knowledgable of the subject at hand.

Comment #149933

Posted by Raging Bee on December 12, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

bob: if they try to make an issue of “excessive cutting and pasting” or the like, they’ll end up drawing more attention to their own – far less competent – cutting and pasting of old creationist arguments into brand-new “ID” textbooks. Best not to go there, or they’ll have to explain that famous phrase “cdesign proponentsists” yet again…

Comment #149934

Posted by John Lynch on December 12, 2006 3:58 PM (e)

Yeah, it’s our boy Larry alright. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1853#comment-80747 to the extended play remix of the same tune.

Comment #149935

Posted by tomh on December 12, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

Coin wrote:

Wait, the AP picked this up? Okay, that’s just disgraceful. Is there anything that can be done to correct this disinformation in the press?

Correct the press??! Hehe, that’s a good one. That story was truly pathetic. Someone should ask the DI why it took them a whole year to figure this out.

Comment #149938

Posted by Coin on December 12, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

Correct the press??! Hehe, that’s a good one.

Well, I was thinking of maybe doing something like writing an indignant letter to the editor of some newspaper that ran the AP story, which if I get really lucky might get published in a little box in the corner of the opinions page where no one would see it.

Comment #149939

Posted by dan on December 12, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

Law is not so much a creative act as it is a recycling or restating of convincing compatible arguments. So much is based on precedent, which if not recycling what else is it!

Comment #149940

Posted by entlord on December 12, 2006 4:23 PM (e)

I am wondering if West is insinuating that Judge Jones is a plagarist and therefore, dishonest. The problem with much scientific writing, particularly in doing a literature review, for example, is trying to paraphrase when there aren’t too many ways to state the material.
I guess West would have been upset if Judge Jones had opted in favor of parsimony and summarized those 20 or so pages as “ID is BS”.

Comment #149943

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 12, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. This has been denounced by every court of appeals save one.

This is not the situation in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Judge Jones did not declare on the last day of the bench trial, “OK, I’m ruling for the plaintiffs. Prepare some findings and I will sign them. Defense, don’t bother.” This is the practice that is frowned upon, although I gather that cases have been upheld even in this situation.

Instead, Jones followed the regular procedure – both sides submitted Proposed Findings, then both sides submitted rebuttals, and then he went through, adopted points he liked, excluded points he didn’t like, added numerous pieces from his own observations (e.g.: “breathtaking inanity”) and synthesized it into a coherent document (rather than just a list of individual points, which is what the parties submit). This constitutes the ruling. This is far different than just signing one side’s brief.

The question that the cranks have not answered is: What do you think Proposed Findings are for? Why do you think the parties right them in the voice of the court? (e.g., “The Court finds X, the Court finds Y.”) A judge’s job is to judge, not to re-do all of the research from scratch himself, for each of the 100+ cases he will have on his docket at any given time.

Comment #149950

Posted by Keanus on December 12, 2006 4:37 PM (e)

I’m no lawyer but it’s clear the DI knows even less than I about rulings from the bench. The case was assigned to Jones randomly. He than sat and heard the evidence, the finding of fact and the conclusions of law, that the opposing attorneys presented. The judge has no staff to go out and research the facts; he depends on the two sides to present their case for those and the most credible presentation wins. That he should cite and quote from the facts he believed to be true should not be surprising. From my reading of the case he did a masterful job of knitting together the facts as he saw them in the briefs and oral arguments offered and reached his own conclusions of law based on his knowledge of the law. If the DI lost, it’s because their facts just didn’t pass muster, even with a church-going Republican Lutheran who was appointed by George Bush. It seems to me that when they seek to find fault with the decision, they should look in the mirror. They simply lacked the facts to support their claim.

Comment #149951

Posted by Raging Bee on December 12, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

Two points…

First, if you want a judge to grant a particular decree or order, chances are the form you’ll have to fill out to make this happen, will be the decree or order itself, with the particulars filled in by you, for the judge to look over and sign. This saves the judge time and effort (and the taxpayers money), enables him/her to hear more cases, and makes the process fair and consistent by ensuring that all instances of a particular decree or order read the same way and say the same things.

Second, even Dumbski admits – beneath a lot of noisy arm-waving, of course – that only one particular part of the decision was “90.9 percent” lifted from the ACLU. This press release admits the truth but is worded in such a way as to imply (to those who don’t read carefully) that “90.9 percent” of the ENTIRE RULING was “plagirized.”

Third, I see nothing in Dumbski’s post that actually refutes or debunks the points that Judge Jones supposedly stole from someone else; nor does he even try to make a case that the pasting results in a less-than-coherent ruling.

Fourth, if Judge Jones had to paste text from the ACLU, it’s probably because he’s reinforcing a point that the ACLU have lots of experience making and explaining – you know, like, something that’s been obvious and true for a long time.

Okay, that’s more than two points – so sue me…

Comment #149954

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on December 12, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

If I remember correctly, there was a time during the trial when the judge and attorneys for both the defense and plaintiffs had a good chuckle at the expense of the Discovery Institute incompetent lawyers, who had just botched the submission of some document or affidavit, and Jones commented to the effect that the Court was not supposed to be running a remedial law school (*).

It would seem that the DI lawyers are once again looking for a lesson in trial procedures. I have a feeling they will get one.

(* - I can’t seem to find the quote. If someone has it, this would be a perfect time to prominently post it.)

Comment #149955

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on December 12, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

KvD Transcripts wrote:

[492]THE COURT: But I am distressed by the fact that there is an expert report attached to the amicus brief. You know, if I open the gate and I tell him I want an expert report, that’s one thing. So I guess, you know, before we all start a plethora of filings, I’m telling you that to give it some thought, we can talk about it tomorrow, I could accept some argument on it if everybody wants to argue, and I can haul in counsel for the Discovery Institute.

They have local counsel, in fact I think it’s Mr. Boyle’s firm who’s local counsel, and we can go through that, have Mr. Boyle have another unhappy day in this court and have his head handed to him, or I can just summarily strike it. I’m not going to take an expert report. Now, there’s yet another one that you have objected to, I can do that on the submissions and that’s not a problem, but I’m interested, do you want to put a dog in that hunt?

[493]MR. GILLEN: You know what, judge? Amicus at the trial court level, as rare as it is, you’re going to have a full record, that’s been our position from the beginning. The only thing I would suggest is like you say, you open the door now and who knows who’s going to show up with a brief, and I don’t –

[494]THE COURT: No, I didn’t, I opened the door I think only to them.

[495]MR. GILLEN: Right.

[496]THE COURT: And I’ve corrected the error now and they’re going to have to follow the rule to the extent that there are future submissions. I didn’t open the door for anybody.

[497]MR. GILLEN: Exactly. No way.

[498]THE COURT: But I take the blame, but in this particular case this large missive which I received in as much as it has an expert report on it, I don’t want to denigrate the Discovery Institute to the masses here.

[499]MR. GILLEN: Right.

[500]THE COURT: But I’m just not going to receive it. I understand what you’re saying, Mr. Muise, sometimes you do, but not having had the dispute about Mr. Dembski –

[501]MR. GILLEN: Yes, I want nothing to do with that. I want nothing to do with not showing up here when he was an expert, and then trying to sneak something?

[502]THE COURT: All right.

[503]MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, just to make it clear, I mean it’s not just any expert report. It’s actually the expert report filed as rebuttal by Dr. Meyer in this case.

[504]THE COURT: Oh, I understand.

[505]MR. ROTHSCHILD: It sounds to me like, you know, it sounds like there’s a basis to strike that doesn’t need to deal with the opportunity you gave them.

[506]THE COURT: There’s no question about that. You know, it’s no harm, no foul. But the fact that I was too charitable and they gained without a motion doesn’t mean that I can’t summarily strike it. I might have done it sua sponte even absent your motion. Think about it. If you change your position, let me know at the outset tomorrow. Otherwise I think that what I’ll do is, I don’t know what I’ll do as to the first submission. That does not contain any expert report. I think – is that the 85 scientists –

[507]MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, Your Honor.

[508]THE COURT: – submission? You may have other grounds, we’ll let that be briefed and we’ll go from there, I’m not going to pre-judge that, but I’m vexed by the fact that I’ve got, you know, another massive submission, and in the meantime their counsel has been e-mailing Liz, and as a judge told me and co-counsel years ago, “We’re not running a law school here,” and the substance of the question is how do we do this, and you know, we’re not going to get into that.

[509]MR. GILLEN: It’s plain from the first brief they don’t know.

[510]THE COURT: Yes. I had Liz e-mail back and say get a copy of the local rules and we got a non sequitur e-mail back which basically said again how do we do this.

Comment #149956

Posted by Raging Bee on December 12, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

John: Thanks for the link. I notice the first comment to Dumbski was: “A higher court probably would have at least moderated Jones’s decision; but unfortunately appeal was impossible here.”

What a bunch of crybabies…

Comment #149957

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

If anything, the fact that these sections are not verbatim proves that Jones carefully went over each item of the proposed findings and deliberately chose to adopt those findings as his own—which he is supposed to do

Even to the point of copying errors?

Comment #149958

Posted by Aagcobb on December 12, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

I practice in US District Courts; attorneys are required to submit proposed orders with virtually every pleading we file. That would be a pretty pointless exercise if the judges never made use of those proposed orders, wouldn’t it?

Comment #149959

Posted by Coin on December 12, 2006 6:28 PM (e)

Even to the point of copying errors?

Now, when you say “errors”, do you mean “errors”?

Or do you mean “things that I claim are false, and the ACLU claims are true, and the judge wound up agreeing with the ACLU and not me”?

Comment #149960

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on December 12, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Andrea - that sounds like the FTE lawyers. Check out the transcripts from the hearing (held in midsummer). On the NCSE site, they have a folder just for the FTE-related stuff.

BTW, the Local Rules for PAMD normally require parties to submit their Porposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law before the trial. However, the parties stipulated that they would submit after trial with a round of rebuttal, and Jones agreed. This makes sense, in part because there were several witnesses that might not be permitted to testify (the reporters and Barbara Forrest) and a number of exhibits were contested. It would have been very difficult to construct a coherent FoF with that amount of uncertainty over what facts could even be presented to the Court!

Comment #149962

Posted by Dave Cerutti on December 12, 2006 6:48 PM (e)

Looks like WorldNutDaily has picked up on the hoopla. Their discerning, illustrious reporters have zeroed in on the truth and chipped away all the spin:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330

Comment #149963

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 6:59 PM (e)

Or do you mean “things that I claim are false, and the ACLU claims are true, and the judge wound up agreeing with the ACLU and not me”?

How do you get

“he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of
evolution, and that it was not
“good enough.””

from

“So it’s not that they aren’t good enough.”

You can agree with what the ACLU says but when it comes to what Behe actually said, Judge Jones and the ACLU (whom he copied from) was just plain wrong.

Comment #149969

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on December 12, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Incredible. Just incredible. But then, as you say Tim, this is all they have left.

I’m reminded of a movie scene where Tom Selleck, portraying an ex-WWI pilot, recounts a battle late in the war in which the German pilots were all inexperienced “schoolboys” because that’s all the Germans had left. “It wasn’t a battle, it was a slaughter.”

Comment #149970

Posted by Anton Mates on December 12, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

Guts wrote:

How do you get

“he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of
evolution, and that it was not “good enough.””

from

“So it’s not that they aren’t good enough.”

Uh, by reading approximately three lines up and down from that sentence?

Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren’t good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?

A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

and again

Q. We’ll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They’re wonderful articles. They’re very interesting. They simply just don’t address the question that I pose.

Behe clearly said that the articles weren’t good enough to meet his criteria. Sure, he also said “it’s not that they aren’t good enough,” directly contradicting himself. This is not particularly unusual for Behe.

Comment #149971

Posted by Doc Bill on December 12, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

That’s why the judge is a judge.

Behe was demolished on the stand. When presented with papers and books specifically addressing the evolution of the immune system Behe responded that the work was not good enough.

What would be good enough, pray tell? A mutation by mutation account, demographics of species over tens of millions of years. That might do it.

It would be like you coming home and finding a bag of groceries, shopping list and store receipt on the counter and refusing to believe that someone had gone to the store without a video of the shopping trip, interviews with store assistants and a before-and-after inventory of the store itself.

So, yeah, Guts, nit-pick on a little point of semantics but face facts: Behe was pwn’d at Dover and he took ID down with him.

Comment #149972

Posted by Anton Mates on December 12, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

Coin wrote:

Now, when you say “errors”, do you mean “errors”?

Or do you mean “things that I claim are false, and the ACLU claims are true, and the judge wound up agreeing with the ACLU and not me”?

Why Coin, however did you guess?

Comment #149974

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 12, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Guts, try to understand what you’re being told. It’s standard practice in trial and appellate courts all over the country, state and federal, for judges to require the parties to submit findings from (the prevailing party’s version of) which the lawyers fully expect that the judge may very well elect to adapt/adopt large sections of text.

The appellate courts explicitly tell advocates to write their briefs the way that the advocate would want the opinion to read should the advocate prevail. This is what skilled advocates want to do–try the case with the right witnesses and the right facts and the right law, and put it all together in the right package of written advocacy so that the judge writes an opinion upholding the advocate’s version of the event or transaction right down to the advocate’s turn of phrase.

This is, one more time, what all skilled advocates (which, admittedly, may leave out the Thomas More gang who botched the Dover case and baby-lawyer Luskin at the DI) expect the courts to do. It’s what we want the courts to do–they’re busy bodies who would have to hire more expensively-educated and trained judges and more staff, burning through more of our tax dollars, if they had to do all their own legal research and writing.

The point isn’t who wrote it first, the point is who wrote it right. If you’ve got a beef with the merit of the judge’s rulings, then make those arguments; but arguing over the source of the words in which his ruling was expressed is, in this context, naive ignorance.

To put it another way, this little fuss isn’t about “plagiarism”, get it? Plagiarism applies to material written with the expectation that its exclusivity will be respected, and that ain’t legal-advocacy writing, get it, which is written with the expectation (certainly the hope) that the judge will copy it!

Or let me put it a third way, for the learning-challenged: Had the school district prevailed in the Dover case, the district’s lawyers would have fully expected the judge to selectively and judiciously “cut’n’paste” from their submissions! In that event, would they have been whining about it now? Re-read what you’ve been told and think real hard before you let us know your answer.

And, duh, of course the findings are submitted in electronic format in most courts these days and of course the (portions of the prevailing party’s findings) that are used in the judge’s ruling are electronically copied. Which means that the occasional typo or other error might very well be carried over from one document to the other. But–as compared with some non-sensical requirement that someone on the judge’s staff re-type from scratch the chosen material–probably this generates fewer net errors than whatever you have naively assumed the process wouold be.

Comment #149975

Posted by Kevin Parker on December 12, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Guts wrote:

How do you get

“he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of
evolution, and that it was not
“good enough.””

from

“So it’s not that they aren’t good enough.”

You can agree with what the ACLU says but when it comes to what Behe actually said, Judge Jones and the ACLU (whom he copied from) was just plain wrong.

If you read all of Behe’s cross-examination on this point (which goes on for several pages after that initial statement), you’ll find that it can pretty much be summed up as “not good enough.”

Comment #149976

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on December 12, 2006 8:09 PM (e)

Guts wrote:

How do you get

“he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of
evolution, and that it was not
“good enough.””

from

“So it’s not that they aren’t good enough.”

You can agree with what the ACLU says but when it comes to what Behe actually said, Judge Jones and the ACLU (whom he copied from) was just plain wrong.

So, Guts, is it your opinion that Behe’s testimony was that the immune system evolution literature presented to him in fact was sufficient evidence of evolution, and that the ACLU and Judge Jones misquoted him on purpose to make him say things he did not? And do you agree - is the evidence for immune system evolution sufficient?

Or are you, like the DI, just grasping at straws, nitpicking about the use of quotes in the ruling, when in fact both the judge and the ACLU interpreted Behe’s statements perfectly right, despite his equivocations and ho-humming on the stand?

You can’t have both - either Behe has recanted on the stand his long-standing position about the evidence for immune system evolution, or Judge Jones’s ruling is absolutely right in the substance, if imprecise in the use of quotes.

Comment #149977

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:09 PM (e)

Behe clearly said that the articles weren’t good enough to meet his criteria. Sure, he also said “it’s not that they aren’t good enough,” directly contradicting himself. This is not particularly unusual for Behe.

Behe never said that “they weren’t good enough”, he specifically stated, in your own quotes that “it’s not that they aren’t good enough”. He consistently stated that they are simply not answering the question he is posing. You really can’t get more clearer than that.

And thats not the only example. Consider also where the ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID, regardless of what you think of Meyer’s research, it is a peer reviewed paper that supports ID. It said IDers don’t conduct any tests. Regardless of what you think of IC, Minnich did indeed do knock-outs in the lab to test the flagellum’s irreducible complexity. He also said ID entails the supernatural and that IDers have admitted this, regardless of what you think about what ID entails, IDers have stated the exact opposite, that a supernatural being is not a requirement of the theory. Behe never said that a precursor to the eubacterial flagellum was impossible, etc etc.

The problem is that it seems like the Judge didn’t care what Behe or Minnich, actually said,he was just copying from the ACLU document.

Comment #149978

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

Behe clearly said that the articles weren’t good enough to meet his criteria. Sure, he also said “it’s not that they aren’t good enough,” directly contradicting himself. This is not particularly unusual for Behe.

Behe never said that “they weren’t good enough”, he specifically stated, in your own quotes that “it’s not that they aren’t good enough”. He consistently stated that they are simply not answering the question he is posing. You really can’t get more clearer than that.

And thats not the only example. Consider also where the ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID, regardless of what you think of Meyer’s research, it is a peer reviewed paper that supports ID. It said IDers don’t conduct any tests. Regardless of what you think of IC, Minnich did indeed do knock-outs in the lab to test the flagellum’s irreducible complexity. He also said ID entails the supernatural and that IDers have admitted this, regardless of what you think about what ID entails, IDers have stated the exact opposite, that a supernatural being is not a requirement of the theory. Behe never said that a precursor to the eubacterial flagellum was impossible, etc etc.

The problem is that it seems like the Judge didn’t care what Behe or Minnich, actually said,he was just copying from the ACLU document.

Comment #149979

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:19 PM (e)

Behe clearly said that the articles weren’t good enough to meet his criteria. Sure, he also said “it’s not that they aren’t good enough,” directly contradicting himself. This is not particularly unusual for Behe.

This isn’t relevant, if you want to interpret Behe that way, thats your perogative, but it has nothing to do with this issue. We are talking about what Behe actually said . Both the ACLU and the Judge got it wrong. Behe never said that “they weren’t good enough”, he specifically stated, in your own quotes that “it’s not that they aren’t good enough”. He consistently stated that they are simply not answering the question he is posing.

And thats not the only example. Consider also where the ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID, regardless of what you think of Meyer’s research, it is a peer reviewed paper that supports ID. It said IDers don’t conduct any tests. Regardless of what you think of IC, Minnich did indeed do knock-outs in the lab to test the flagellum’s irreducible complexity. He also said ID entails the supernatural and that IDers have admitted this, regardless of what you think about what ID entails, IDers have stated the exact opposite, that a supernatural being is not a requirement of the theory. Behe never said that a precursor to the eubacterial flagellum was impossible, etc etc.

The problem is that it seems like the Judge didn’t care what Behe or Minnich, actually said,he was just copying from the ACLU document.

Comment #149980

Posted by Jud on December 12, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Re Guts calling the judge’s characterization of a portion of Behe’s testimony on cross-examination an “error:”

“During cross examination, Rothschild stacked up on the witness stand 58 articles from prestigious journals like Science, Nature, Molecular Cell, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. All of them described research on the evolution of the immune system. ‘Is your position today that these articles aren’t good enough?’ Rothschild challenged. He then piled on 10 textbooks with titles like Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System.

“‘What I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous fashion,’ [Behe] replied, adding later that ‘I haven’t read them [all].’”

Strikes me that “He simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution” is a more than fair characterization of Behe’s statement - charitable, in fact, when you consider that the judge could well have emphasized the point that Behe’s insistence on all these references’ insufficiency came (by his own admission) in spite of the fact that he hadn’t read some (most?) of them.

Comment #149981

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

Oops sorry about the double posting (or triple) posting. I kept getting an error so I thought it didn’t go through.

Andrea:

So, Guts, is it your opinion that Behe’s testimony was that the immune system evolution literature presented to him in fact was sufficient evidence of evolution, and that the ACLU and Judge Jones misquoted him on purpose to make him say things he did not?

Well I can’t speak for Behe I can only guess. But my opinion is that Behe would understand why the homology and experimental evidence presented in the papers regarding the origin of Rag1 would convince an evolutionist, and is in fact relevant to any ID hypothesis. Nonetheless, that is not what Behe is asking about, he is asking whether natural selection and random mutation is all that it takes to get these things together to make up the immune system. He’s looking to count the mutations.

And do you agree - is the evidence for immune system evolution sufficient?

Yes. But it’s not like this would be shocking to Behe, he did advocate “slow design” in the transcripts.

Or are you, like the DI, just grasping at straws, nitpicking about the use of quotes in the ruling, when in fact both the judge and the ACLU interpreted Behe’s statements perfectly right, despite his equivocations and ho-humming on the stand?

As far as I can see, almost at every turn, the ACLU completely misunderstood and misrepresented ID, and the Judge fell for it hook line and sinker, or at least it appears that way.

You can’t have both - either Behe has recanted on the stand his long-standing position about the evidence for immune system evolution, or Judge Jones’s ruling is absolutely right in the substance, if imprecise in the use of quotes.

Comment #149982

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on December 12, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Behe never said that “they weren’t good enough”, he specifically stated, in your own quotes that “it’s not that they aren’t good enough”. He consistently stated that they are simply not answering the question he is posing. You really can’t get more clearer than that.

Hence, they are not good enough as far as being “sufficient evidence of evolution”, exactly as the Judge (and the ACLU) said. Let’s move on.

Consider also where the ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID, regardless of what you think of Meyer’s research, it is a peer reviewed paper that supports ID.

Quoting the ruling:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).

Note that the ruling provides exact sources fro every statement. For instance, 22:22-23 (Behe) is:

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Finally, the issue with “testing IC” stems from the usual equivocation about the term. “IC” as identified by knock-outs (i.e. requirement for individual parts for a complex to work) is neither controversial, nor an ID concept (it was discussed by Muller in the ’30s as a natural product of evolutionary mechanisms). On the other hand IC as a supposedly unevolvable, “intelligently designed” feature has indeed never been tested by ID advocates, or anyone else, as confirmed by Behe and others.

Predictions based on evolutionary models for the origin of IC systems have been tested by non-ID scientists and, as in the case of the immune system, have been verified. But that is, of course, a different story.

Comment #149983

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 12, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

The reason is for all this confusion over “good enough” is that Behe was unable to form a coherent argument for why he was dismissing the volumes of research that has been done on immune system evolution. The type of research that he had declared as impossible to do. At the same time that Behe was literally saying that the research was “good enough” to establish the evolution of the immune system, he was also arguing that the papers did not answer his challenge to explain the evolution of the immune system.

It seems to me that the Discovery Institute is exploiting Behe’s self-contradiction, to nitpick the Court’s decision. Behe clearly testified that the papers were not good enough while at the same time claiming that that the were not not good enough. The Court saw the bigger picture of Behe’s opinion of scientific research, even though because of Behe’s self-contradiction it shouldn’t have used quotation marks.

Comment #149984

Posted by Coin on December 12, 2006 8:42 PM (e)

Aha. So when Guts spoke of “errors”, he wasn’t referring to anything other than the “errors” mentioned in the DI press release.

And, in both cases, they’re not errors. They’re just facts that the DI doesn’t like.

Face it, Guts– the judge didn’t “copy” an “error”. He ruled that Behe’s testimony dismissed the evidence before him out of hand as not good enough, and he ruled that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting ID. The IDers had a fair chance to convince the judge that the facts were otherwise, during the trial and in their rebuttal to the ACLU’s proposed findings. The IDers failed.

Comment #149985

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

But my opinion is that Behe would understand why the homology and experimental evidence presented in the papers regarding the origin of Rag1 would convince an evolutionist, and is in fact relevant to any ID hypothesis.

And in my opinion, you would be being highly charitable given how Behe doesn’t even think reading widely through the literature, the same literature he claims is insufficient, is important for making statements about it.

Despite how hard you are trying to spin Behe as anything other than someone who got caught with their pants down well and truly, his own testimony does clearly indicate he was ignorant about a large amount of literature on the immune system and that he did not regard it as sufficient anyway. All without giving any indication what-so-ever he actually bothers to read more than the odd review paper.

Behe shot himself through the foot on the stand. All the spinning in the world isn’t going to save his credibility.

As far as I can see, almost at every turn, the ACLU completely misunderstood and misrepresented ID, and the Judge fell for it hook line and sinker, or at least it appears that way.

And you would be wrong. Considering that Behe, not the ACLU, admitted on the stand there was no peer-reviewed research on ID and this is an obvious fact in the transcript (that you evidentally missed?) it’s fairly clear who is making errors as to what was/was not actually said here.

Comment #149986

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

Hence, they are not good enough as far as being “sufficient evidence of evolution”, exactly as the Judge (and the ACLU) said. Let’s move on.

Like I said, you can go ahead and believe that if you want. You have every right to and I have no problem with it.But it’s completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about what you believe he said, we’re talking about what he actually said. The ACLU wrote that he said “it isn’t good enough”, when he said the exact opposite.

Consider also where the ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID, regardless of what you think of Meyer’s research, it is a peer reviewed paper that supports ID.

Note that the ruling provides exact sources fro every statement. For instance, 22:22-23 (Behe) is:

Andrea, if you notice the qualification “supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”, you’ll see that your argument here is ridiculous. The ACLU wrote that there aren’t any peer reviewed papers, experiments or otherwise.

Andrea:

On the other hand IC as a supposedly unevolvable, “intelligently designed” feature has indeed never been tested by ID advocates, or anyone else, as confirmed by Behe and others.

This is the same issue, you can believe that about IC if you want, that it’s concept borrowed by IDers and it has nothing to do with the evolutionary pathways if ICness is established (although peer reviewed papers disagree with you). Also, not even Behe claims that they are “unevolvable” but again, you can believe what you want. The bottom line is whether IDers have in fact tested their own concepts on the systems that they made claims about, the answer isn’t no, the answer is yes.

Comment #149987

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 12, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

It is funny that Guts brings up Meyer’s paper because most of its text was recycled from previous Meyer et al. papers—a practice that is not considered acceptable in the academic world, especially when one does not acknowledge that the vast majority of the paper had been previously published.

Comment #149988

Posted by IDiot Savant on December 12, 2006 8:46 PM (e)

Comment #149902 posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 12, 2006 10:57 AM said –

Umm, IS, you ignored this sentence: “We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them.”

Umm, RAD, I did not ignore the sentence – I just didn’t comment on it.

The DI has not accused him of copying his conclusions of law. So your citation fails to support them.

The sentence applies to “findings of fact” as well as “conclusions of law,” and DI accused Jones of copying the ACLU’s findings of fact. Also, Jones copied conclusions of law as well – the Dover opinion said in the conclusion section,

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. (emphasis added) -from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html

For comparison, here is what an ACLU brief said:

351. In order to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause, and Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is necessary and appropriate to enter an order enjoining defendants from implementing their biology curriculum change, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to an alternative theory known as “intelligent design.” (emphasis added) — from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf2.html#p497

For the following reasons, I am especially troubled by the prohibition against “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution”:
(1) The words “disparage” and “denigrate” are ambiguous in this context.
(2) This prohibition could be applied to scientific criticisms of evolution that were not reviewed by Jones (Jones reviewed only ID).
(3) This general prohibition appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”
(4) This prohibition was not even included in the order at the end of the opinion, showing that Jones just absent-mindedly copied the entire above section of the ACLU brief and changed a few words in a feeble effort to make the section appear to be original.

Reed A. Cartwright continues,

Furthermore, the DI’s calculation of ~90% is based on pretty liberal criteria.

A charge of plagiarism cannot be avoided just by changing a few words here and there.

Comment #149943 posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 12, 2006 4:29 PM said –

Jones followed the regular procedure – both sides submitted Proposed Findings, then both sides submitted rebuttals, and then he went through, adopted points he liked, excluded points he didn’t like, added numerous pieces from his own observations (e.g.: “breathtaking inanity”) and synthesized it into a coherent document (rather than just a list of individual points, which is what the parties submit). This constitutes the ruling. This is far different than just signing one side’s brief.

To Jones’ credit (and he does not deserve much), he did not actually ask the plaintiffs’ attorneys to write the whole opinion. But where a judge’s opinion directly quotes a large section of another court document or any other document, the opinion should acknowledge the source. Readers of an opinion – potentially including appellate judges – have a right to know which words are the judges’ own and which are not. Also, aren’t opinions that are entirely written by one of the parties clearly identified as such, either in the opinion itself or in other court proceedings? Then why shouldn’t an opinion section that is written by one of the parties also be clearly identified as such?

There is more –

Jones did not even bother to check the record to make sure that the ACLU material that he was going to use was factually accurate (particularly regarding Behe’s “not good enough” statement and the number of peer-reviewed ID papers).

Also, why does it seem that all of the cutting and pasting in the ID-as-science section comes from the plaintiffs’ briefs and none from the defendants’ briefs? Shouldn’t have something come from the defendants’ briefs, if for no other purpose than to refute it?

Comment #149989

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'blockquote'

Comment #149990

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 12, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

Andrea, if you notice the qualification “supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”, you’ll see that your argument here is ridiculous. The ACLU wrote that there aren’t any peer reviewed papers, experiments or otherwise.

Umm, Guts, that “qualification” as you call it is what would establish that a paper actually supports ID. Just because an author claims that his recycled review paper supports something doesn’t mean that it actually does.

Comment #149991

Posted by ivy privy on December 12, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

If you folks are expecting good reading comprehension and attention to detail from Mr. Guts, you’re going to be disappointed.

Comment #149992

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

O’Donnel:

Considering that Behe, not the ACLU, admitted on the stand there was no peer-reviewed research on ID and this is an obvious fact in the transcript (that you evidentally missed?) it’s fairly clear who is making errors as to what was/was not actually said here.

There are no papers with the qualification the lawyer gave it. But thats not what the ACLU wrote , they wrote “In addition to failing to
produce papers in
peer-reviewed journals”, Meyer didn’t fail, he succeeded, don’t you think? The sad thing is that this was submitted to the Judge, but like I said, the Judge didn’t seem to think for himself.

Comment #149993

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

Umm, Guts, that “qualification” as you call it is what would establish that a paper actually supports ID.

Much like how Behe and Snoke, although purporting to ‘support’ ID with actual realistic numbers actually ends up undermining the actual hypothesis they wanted to present?

:)

Comment #149994

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

Just because an author claims that his recycled review paper supports something doesn’t mean that it actually does.

The ACLU didn’t write “that supports ID” , so that is irrelevant as well, they wrote that no ID supporter has published a paper about ID in the peer reviewed journals. That is patently false.

Comment #149995

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on December 12, 2006 9:06 PM (e)

Andrea, if you notice the qualification “supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”, you’ll see that your argument here is ridiculous. The ACLU wrote that there aren’t any peer reviewed papers, experiments or otherwise.

Umm, Guts, that “qualification” as you call it is what would establish that a paper actually supports ID. Just because an author claims that his recycled review paper supports something doesn’t mean that it actually does.

Well, that’s par for the course. In ID-land, sneaking into a peer-reviewed journal a paper whose entire text was: “I support ID.” would count as a “peer-reviewed paper supporting ID”. Evidence is optional.

Comment #149996

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 9:07 PM (e)

they wrote “In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals”, Meyer didn’t fail, he succeeded, don’t you think?

No, he failed to get his paper published through the same mechanisms everyone else had to and ended up having to skirt around the usual peer-review systems to do it. The fact the paper was retracted by the journal in question (because it was published without their normal peer-review system) does not seem to phase you.

The fact that in 10 years since DBB, the ID movement has failed to produce any significant papers that establish any of their claims at all. I would definitely say this constitutes a complete failure of the ID creationist movement.

You can spin all you want, but it was the ID experts who did the most damage to themselves in that trial.

Comment #149997

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

ID theorists really do think that they have removed any religious auxillary asumptions from their theory

No they don’t. “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” – William Dembski.

and that all it requires beyond your “science” is simply the admittance of intelligent agent causation as a detectable cause in the construction or programmiing of biological life forms

Whose science? Science is science. And if you think that an intelligent agent is a detectable cause, then kindly provide evidence that comprises this detection. Of course, to do so, you must have a theory of the causal agent, by which you can interpret that evidence as of that agent. Of course they do have a theory of the agent, but they dare not speak of it in public. But they have no evidence – just fallacious arguments such as the Paley argument, the irreducible complexity argument, and the “no free lunch” argument.

but to us in the middle

What’s the middle – not a committed IDiot but still completely ignorant of biology?

Comment #149999

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Well, that’s par for the course. In ID-land, sneaking into a peer-reviewed journal a paper whose entire text was: “I support ID.” would count as a “peer-reviewed paper supporting ID”. Evidence is optional.

Andrea you should know by now that no IDer will ever publish a paper about how the design occurred, nor do they even want to, because it has nothing to do with whether a particular system shows the hallmarks of design.

No, he failed to get his paper published through the same mechanisms everyone else had to and ended up having to skirt around the usual peer-review systems to do it.

Regardless of your opinion, which I disagree with, the fact of the matter is that an ID paper passed peer review and made it into the journals, contrary to what the ACLU wrote. All the whining in the world won’t change that.

Comment #150000

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

The ACLU didn’t write “that supports ID” , so that is irrelevant as well, they wrote that no ID supporter has published a paper about ID in the peer reviewed journals. That is patently false.

Ah, so writing a peer-reviewed paper that actually supports ID is irrelevant to the scientific validity of ID, but managing to get a paper about ID published in a peer reviewed journal is relevant to the scientific validity of ID. Thanks for setting us straight on that, Guts.

Comment #150001

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

All the whining in the world won’t change that.

All that whining in the world won’t change the fact that you IDiots lost in a court of law, and you lost based on valid reasoning, not based on the sort of sophistry you’re engaging in here.

Comment #150002

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

it has nothing to do with whether a particular system shows the hallmarks of design.

And what, pray tell, are those? Please provide a scientific answer. You may take all the time you want.

Comment #150003

Posted by Guts on December 12, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

Ah, so writing a peer-reviewed paper that actually supports ID is irrelevant to the scientific validity of ID, but managing to get a paper about ID published in a peer reviewed journal is relevant to the scientific validity of ID. Thanks for setting us straight on that, Guts.

I’m just relying on what the ACLU wrote, they said no IDers have ever published papers in the journals, that is false. Regardless of whether you think the paper that Meyers submitted supports ID is irrelevant. I do think that Meyers paper supports ID, but I realize that IDer’s are from Mars and anti-IDers are from Venus, we talk a different language. However,the fact is that he succeeded, he didn’t fail. Thats all from me for tonight.

Comment #150004

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

I’m just relying on what the ACLU wrote

You’re just playing a silly word game. Do you think we are all as stupid as you are?

Thats all from me for tonight.

You won’t be missed, troll.

Comment #150005

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 9:21 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #150006

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

they said no IDers have ever published papers in the journals

Here you’re plain lying, and contradicting what you wrote previously: “ACLU writes that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting ID”

Comment #150007

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on December 12, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

The ACLU didn’t write “that supports ID” , so that is irrelevant as well, they wrote that no ID supporter has published a paper about ID in the peer reviewed journals. That is patently false.

No, it isn’t, if you put the sentence in context.

The ruling first goes on extensively and very clearly about what papers it is talking about (i.e. papers which could be considered as meaningfully supporting ID):
- peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred;
- peer-reviewed papers supporting his [Behe’s] claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed;
- peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”

Having specified which papers it is talking about, the ruling continues:

In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

In other words, not only have ID advocates, by their own admission, failed to present any meaningful experimental evidence supporting their conjectures in the peer-reviewed literature - by their own admission, they are actually not even trying to collect any.

Which is, of course, patently true.

Comment #150008

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on December 12, 2006 9:28 PM (e)

However,the fact is that he succeeded,

Hey, I guess if you succeed by cheating the system then I guess a win is a win?

Hillarious, the complete lack of any form of integrity. Brilliant.

Comment #150009

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 12, 2006 9:33 PM (e)

ooh ooh! a “real” IDiot!

Guts:

although peer reviewed papers disagree with you).

are those the ones “peer reviewed” in Rivista De Biologia?

BWAHAHAHA!

bring ‘em on, bright boy. shall we shred those papers’ appaling LACK of actual research and evidence for the umpteenth time for you?

that should be enjoyable.

haven’t seen a “true believer” in ID in these parts for ages.

Please please please, with sugar on top, say you wish to argue the points raised in the literature you seem to think supports ID.

Heck, we could even make an entire thread for you to expound upon your thoughts on these “papers” over on ATBC!

you’d like that, yes?

Comment #150010

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 9:41 PM (e)

The software here is so broken. I know there are several posts here that aren’t showing. And preview no longer let’s you see them. Maybe if I add one more they’ll show up …

Comment #150011

Posted by Dave Carlson on December 12, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

Andrea you should know by now that no IDer will ever publish a paper about how the design occurred, nor do they even want to, because it has nothing to do with whether a particular system shows the hallmarks of design.

And IDer’s should know by now that it is for this precise reason (Well, that’s not really true. This is but one of many reasons) that ID will never gain any significant ground with the mass of scientists who, ya know, actually care about finding out how the world works.

Comment #150013

Posted by MarkP on December 12, 2006 10:09 PM (e)

Guts wrote:

…no IDer will ever publish a paper about how the design occurred, nor do they even want to, because it has nothing to do with whether a particular system shows the hallmarks of design.

There is the anti-science philosophy revealed. Can you imagine an archaeologist proving that a relic was designed by some great intelligence, and yet having no interest in pursuing how the design was accomplished, or what the nature of the designer was? It’s preposterous.

There is only one reason they would limit their inquisitiveness in such a way, and that reason is political, not scientific.

Comment #150014

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 12, 2006 10:16 PM (e)

hmm, I’m thinking “guts” is yet another psuedonym for Larry Farfromsane.

anybody taking bets?

Comment #150016

Posted by PvM on December 12, 2006 10:28 PM (e)

An ACLU official calls the Institute’s report a stunt.

“They’re getting no traction in the scientific world so they’re trying to do something … as a PR stunt to get attention,” said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU’s lead attorney on the case.

“That’s not how scientists work,” he said. “Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media.”

Walczak said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a “cultural war,” pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge.

“Why don’t these guys go back to their ‘labs,’ and do something meaningful?” Walczak asked. “Oh, wait. They don’t have labs. Silly me.”

Walczak said Jones was not a judge who “slept” through the trial and then blindly accepted the ACLU’s positions.

“You could not have had a more engaged judge,” he said.

Walczak said it’s standard procedure for attorneys to submit proposed findings of fact. Dover’s attorneys also submitted their own proposed findings to the judge. Had the judge agreed with their arguments, he would have cited their proposed findings of fact.

“This is something lawyers do routinely, precisely so judges can use them,” Walczak said.

York Dispatch…

Nice response….

Were are the ID labs ? And where is the ID research that Paul Nelson is talking about?

ID is a scientific desert, a void, a scientifically vacuous concept.
And IDers know it, so what else to do but to lament their losses and lick their wounds while blaming others.

Comment #150017

Posted by Anton Mates on December 12, 2006 11:23 PM (e)

Guts wrote:

The ACLU wrote that he said “it isn’t good enough”, when he said the exact opposite.

He said both. And if he had meant the exact opposite, he would have been testifying against ID, not for it. Are you saying Judge Jones should have recognized that Behe was actually a stealth pro-evolution witness?

I’m just relying on what the ACLU wrote, they said no IDers have ever published papers in the journals, that is false. Regardless of whether you think the paper that Meyers submitted supports ID is irrelevant. I do think that Meyers paper supports ID, but I realize that IDer’s are from Mars and anti-IDers are from Venus, we talk a different language. However,the fact is that he succeeded, he didn’t fail.

His paper did not pass peer-review and has been retracted by the journal. We call this “failure.”

Comment #150018

Posted by Popper's Ghost on December 12, 2006 11:41 PM (e)

There is the anti-science philosophy revealed. Can you imagine an archaeologist proving that a relic was designed by some great intelligence, and yet having no interest in pursuing how the design was accomplished, or what the nature of the designer was? It’s preposterous.

There is only one reason they would limit their inquisitiveness in such a way, and that reason is political, not scientific.

Indeed; why would it matter that “a particular system shows the hallmarks of design”, as a raw fact? Only to show that they had been right – about the falsity of the theory of evolution, about the existence of their supposedly anonymous designer. But as Quine noted:

The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are.The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all accounts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge.

Comment #150019

Posted by Dave Puskala on December 13, 2006 12:18 AM (e)

Paul Nelson was on the Bible Answerman the last two days trying many of the same arguments. He spent a lot of the first day bashing Judge Jones while shilling the Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Of course, Unlocking is a pre-Dover production that does not reflect the shellacking ID took in the courtroom. The DI folks must really be feeling desparate. Perhaps the ironic part is that the true believers don’t apear to be aware of how badly their side lost in Dover.

Comment #150020

Posted by GSLamb on December 13, 2006 12:38 AM (e)

I am, quite frankly, shocked that Sal has yet to grace the PT with his view on this issue.

Comment #150051

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on December 13, 2006 6:27 AM (e)

So now DI is complaining that 25 out of 139 pages are homologous instead of intelligently designed by Judge Jones? *And* they claim ancestry. Do they ever stop to think about what they are doing?

Seems they are evolving from loser through having lost through completely lost to completely lost it. (Ahem!)

Comment #150053

Posted by Raging Bee on December 13, 2006 9:00 AM (e)

I am absolutely amazed to note that UncommonPissant has allowed, not one, but THREE of my posts to stand in a period of less than twenty-four hours – at least as of five minutes ago. Without snark or censorship either. If I were a certain sort of Christian (the kind who believes his God would throw away a perfectly good Universe after a paltry few thousane years of recorded Human history), I’d consider this a sign of the End Times. At the very least, some wingnuts are losing their oomph.

Comment #150054

Posted by L. Breckinridge on December 13, 2006 9:03 AM (e)

Comment #149960 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund said –

… the Local Rules for PAMD normally require parties to submit their Porposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law before the trial. However, the parties stipulated that they would submit after trial with a round of rebuttal, and Jones agreed.

So these “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law“ briefs are not even mentioned in the national Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the federal district courts, but are only mentioned in the local rules of these courts, and the local rules are of course not uniform. The local rules of some federal district courts might not mention these briefs at all. Also, I know that these briefs are not required by the court rules of the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit federal appeals court, and might not be required by the other federal appeals courts. Then there are also state courts and local courts, which have their own rules. So how could this procedure of cutting and pasting from such briefs be a standard practice?

Of course, it seems that litigants should have some way of presenting written rather than just oral summaries at the conclusion of the presentation of the testimony and evidence, so maybe these final “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law“ briefs are common even though they are often not required by court rules. However, it seems to me that it is only reasonable to expect that judges who quote these briefs verbatim or nearly verbatim identify the sources, just as with any other kind of source.

Anyway, I think that the “fundies“ have already won a big PR victory here. The revelation of Jones‘ plagiarism will forever change the way that many people will view the Dover opinion.

Comment #150063

Posted by Raging Bee on December 13, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

Well, that didn’t last long – I posted Behe’s admission that there was no actual scientific work supporting ID, and Dumbski hisself banned me and deleted that post. Now we see the violence inherent in the system. HELP, I’M BEING REPRESSED! SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!! Did you see that? I was repressed…and I’ve got a previous snapshot to prove it…

Oh well, on the brighter side, the End Times must not be coming after all…

Comment #150064

Posted by ben on December 13, 2006 9:55 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'b'

Comment #150065

Posted by ben on December 13, 2006 9:57 AM (e)

I think that the “fundies“ have already won a big PR victory here.

Of course, the only people who still feel the need to blather on about Jones’ decision on a daily basis are said fundies, who will never be convinced of anything that runs contrary to their preconceived ideas. And you, Larry.

The revelation of Jones‘ plagiarism will forever change the way that many people will view the Dover opinion.

Of course, nobody cares how “many people” might choose to view the Dover result. It’s not a PR release and this isn’t a popularity contest. It’s a legal decision where ID lost. It’s over–get used to it.

If Dover was such a bad legal decision, why aren’t any of the IDiots involved trying to put through the same policy in another jurisdiction, where they would presumably get a better result? Indeed, why were most of them actually running from the case even before it was even decided? Because–all informed and disingenuous bitching about ‘activist’ Jones and his unfair decision aside–everyone including the IDiots knows it would turn out the same way anywhere else.

Comment #150066

Posted by k.e. on December 13, 2006 10:06 AM (e)

L. Breckinridge

Anyway, I think that the “fundies“ have already won a big PR victory here.

Just like the cigarette companies had big PR ‘victories’ after they lost their many attempts to scam the judicial system, more victories like that and…..

The revelation of Jones‘ plagiarism will forever change the way that many people will view the Dover opinion.

Well he could have quoted all the other ‘victories’ the ‘fundies’ had in their previous cases…oops….THAT must make him look real bad (snicker), it would seem L. Breckinridge would have liked a new precedent set… that a particular brand of nonsense religious pseudo science unique to a well known cult/sect masquerading as science be included in Biology classes instead of religious studies classes…which as we all know he said was OK….

When are you going to bring up privilege on Buckingham’s emails? …thats always good for a giggle.

Comment #150068

Posted by tomh on December 13, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

The real disgrace in this dog and pony show is that the American mainstream media still treats the Discovery Institute as though it is a legitimate voice of “opposition”, so to speak, in this trumped up debate. They never point out the religious motivations of the DI, or the non-existent science, they’re just happy to call it a “think tank”, and quote their spokesmen as if their announcements meant something. This current “revelation” on the Dover case is just the latest in a long line of pandering by the press on this subject. It’s disgraceful.

Comment #150070

Posted by Raging Bee on December 13, 2006 10:35 AM (e)

I made a bunch of statements on UD yesterday, but the UD regulars didn’t try to respond to them until after their Dear Leader announced that I’m banned. To plagirize – oops, I mean quote – a PFOF from Stevie Nicks: “We know you won’t fall/’Cause the whole thing’s phony.”

Comment #150072

Posted by PvM on December 13, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

It’s a lovely sight to see these self professed Christians so intent on destroying the reputation of a good judge, and Christian.
Remind me again, who did the Swiftboating PR and who is the DI’s PR group?

Aha, Wesley to the rescue

Recently, we noted that the Discovery Institute was bemoaning their lack of funds to support their anti-evolution activities. That claim was factually wrong. In fact, it turns out that over the past year they had enough money to hire a very high-profile public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts (CRC), to spread their message. This is the same firm that represents AT&T, the canonical American mega-corporation, among a long list of clients.

Other notable CRC clients include the “Contract for America”, Parents Television Council, Regnery Publishing (the firm that published Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin On Trial), and the high-profile client of the 2004 USA presidential campaign, “Swift Boat Vets for Truth“.

CRC has earned its pay from the DI CRSC this year. CRC arranged the showing of the film, The Privileged Planet, at the Smithsonian Institution, and provided the New York Times with an op-ed piece by Cardinal Schoenborn, an event that now seems more and more to be a Discovery Institute publicity stunt.

Comment #150073

Posted by Doc Bill on December 13, 2006 10:49 AM (e)

Breckinridge is trying to do a snow-job but his argument is going downhill fast. Perhaps he didn’t get his lift ticket from the Disco. Inst. who published the following on their website:

(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).

Obviously Breckers is not ready for the Double-Diamond expert trails and should stick to the Bunny slope. Here, Brecks, take this nice balloon filled with hot air from Behe’s “arguments” and go away, Sonny, you’re bothering the big people around here.

Comment #150088

Posted by Glen Davidson on December 13, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

Andrea you should know by now that no IDer will ever publish a paper about how the design occurred,

And why not? It’s because it didn’t occur. You show that it occurred by showing how it did, at least according to some broad engineering or “design” principles.

nor do they even want to,

Of course they don’t want to, because they’d look even more stupid than “Guts” does now if they tried.

because it has nothing to do with whether a particular system shows the hallmarks of design.

It has much to do with it showing the hallmarks of design, unless you’re really so retarded to think that Dembski’s calculations capture the hallmarks of design. But of course design has never been detected that way, nor can it be, since eliminating known “natural causes” (even if it were honestly achieved) doesn’t do anything to indicate design. One reason for that, actually, is that knowable design is due to natural causes, and would require some sort of broad recognition of the design processes (rationality, novelty, and “borrowing” without restriction would count as sound hallmarks of design) even to demonstrate that it had occurred.

And now a clue for the clueless: Dembski likes to use SETI and fictive SETI findings to “analogize” to his “attempts” to “find design”. I’m even willing to concede that his probability issues (which he mislabels (and we know why) as “complexity” even when it is a matter of simplicity) could point in the direction of SETI. But no one would accept merely an unlikely signal as evidence for intelligence or for “design”, rather we’d demand certain patterns and the incorporation of universal knowledge (not mere patterning via that knowledge, as evolution is capable of) into “designs” as real evidence for intelligent aliens.

For instance, a rationally-designed machine not made by humans would be evidence for alien intelligence. Guess what, though? We doubt that we’d mistake the aliens themselves as evidence for intelligent design (unless, of course, they had genetically re-engineered themselves). This is where Dembski’s analogy becomes colossally stupid, because we’d never mistake evolved life as being designed, or at least we have no reason to think that we would. Why? Because life shows none of the hallmarks of design, with no consistently “rational design” (some aspects might pass as rationally designed (until we looked at the genome, that is), most would not), a marked lack of novelty vis-a-vis related organisms, and without the kind of inspired borrowings that real intelligences engage in.

If Dembski can ever show that we’d mistake the alien or its code (provided they haven’t been re-engineered) as having been designed, then he might have a story. The whole point of SETI is to find what intelligent beings have made and to discern intelligent causation from that, and thus to be able to infer the evolved (at least originally evolved) beings behind these designs. If we made the same blunders as IDists, we’d suppose that we would be incapable of ever discovering life on other planets, since we’d not know the difference between “designer” and “designed”, or between “man and machine”, and SETI would in fact be impossible.

The fact is that ID has only done one original thing (even if it isn’t entirely new, some of the ways of making the claim are relatively new), which is to insist that life and design are indistinguishable. Now that takes some chutzpah, all right, since we do distinguish the two on a regular basis, and rarely have any problem with that task. But these ultimate materialists insist that machine and life are indistinguishable, and that all of the science that differentiates life and its processes from our own is wrong.

What IDists mean when they say “we can detect design” is that we can’t distinguish design from life nor from cosmological constants. It is imperative that they do this, otherwise they couldn’t take the necessary characteristics of life in our universe (complexity genetically specified) and claim them for “design”. Then to avoid the usual scientific imperative that any design be recognizable and distinguishable from, say, life, they deny that design even needs to be explained in any way.

Thus they wish to set science back to a level below the pre-scientific era, when people knew instinctively that intelligently-made designs were different from life (I know of no myth in which life was simply designed, though forms into which life was poured or breathed might be externally designed). That ability is too great for humans to use properly, and it must be wrenched from our wretched hands. Life and machine are no longer to be distinguished, for we are all Frankenstein’s children.

Let us bow down to the post-modern Prometheuses who have made us into machines.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #150090

Posted by Glen Davidson on December 13, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

Considering that Behe, not the ACLU, admitted on the stand there was no peer-reviewed research on ID and this is an obvious fact in the transcript (that you evidentally missed?) it’s fairly clear who is making errors as to what was/was not actually said here.

There are no papers with the qualification the lawyer gave it. But thats not what the ACLU wrote , they wrote “In addition to failing to
produce papers in
peer-reviewed journals”, Meyer didn’t fail, he succeeded, don’t you think? The sad thing is that this was submitted to the Judge, but like I said, the Judge didn’t seem to think for himself.

This is about the only thing I’d agree with “Guts” on. There have been ID papers in “peer-reviewed journals” (if not especially impressive ones) which is what was denied by the ACLU and apparently Jones in at least one instance. That they don’t support ID goes without saying (no one knows how anything could actually support the hodgepodge of evidence dodges that constitute “ID theory”), so it is hardly crucial that such an egregious “theory” wasn’t actually supported by these papers. It was a mistake by the guys on our side, though an understandable one (we would not think that mere fealty to ID makes an “ID paper” worthy of the name, but the IDists think it does since it is all “faith” (in them “faith” is indistinguishable from denial)).

In fact I can’t even think of why any of these ID papers should have passed any peer reviews (we still wonder about how Sternberg directed the notorious review at the journal he headed), but it only goes to show what everyone knowledgeable about science knows—that peer-review only exists because nothing better has been devised as yet (not at the rates the journals would pay, anyhow, which so far is nothing). And no one should make too much of the fact that an idea has or hasn’t passed peer-review, since any politically-inspired concept will likely try in enough instances and a variety ways to pass the low standards of some journals out there, in order to make it to the point of being “peer-reviewed”.

Many rather better than ID, but still failed, ideas have passed peer-review, only to be debunked later. The Schoen affair alone accounts for 10s of failed claims, which more or less sailed through peer-review at highly rated journals. In the annals of fraud, the DI has little to be proud of, since their five or more ID “scientists” (hard to count up the “scientists” there) could get rather less than 10 papers into even low-rated “peer-reviewed” journals.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #150091

Posted by Joe McFaul on December 13, 2006 1:17 PM (e)

his was almost detailed enough to thinkit was written by a lawyer:

“ these “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law“ briefs are not even mentioned in the national Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the federal district courts, but are only mentioned in the local rules of these courts, and the local rules are of course not uniform. The local rules of some federal district courts might not mention these briefs at all. Also, I know that these briefs are not required by the court rules of the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit federal appeals court, and might not be required by the other federal appeals courts. Then there are also state courts and local courts, which have their own rules. So how could this procedure of cutting and pasting from such briefs be a standard practice?”

Well, fist the Porposed findigns are widespread in the U.S. distrcit court system, usually set out in the local rules, as correctly noted.

Civics lesson. The District court is a trial court. All cases begin in the District courts where they are decied. Very few of these are appealed. So, it does no good to look at the 9th circuit or U.S. Supreme Court, both appeallate courts, to determine the standard practice in trial courts.

Since the 9th Circuit and the Supreem Court do not make fact determinationson appeal (that’s not their job), there’s no reason for those courts to have Porposed Findings.

But wait. They do have something else–appellate briefs. Ive written a few of these. And you know waht? The Ninth Circuit opinion in my case sounded a lot like my winning brief. Whole sections of my brief got lifted directly into the opinion. There should be no surprise that a written opinion will look a lot like the winning side’s brief. Why re-invent a well constructed wheel?

Comment #150096

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on December 13, 2006 1:58 PM (e)

Correction to my previous comment (assuming it ever appears):

Larry wrote his brief in third person, but not necessarily in the VotC.

(If my previous comment doesn’t appear, I’ll repost with a strikethrough)

Comment #150108

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 13, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

Well, that didn’t last long – I posted Behe’s admission that there was no actual scientific work supporting ID, and Dumbski hisself banned me and deleted that post

congrats!

surely that wasn’t your first time getting banned from UD?

Comment #150109

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 13, 2006 3:22 PM (e)

Glen-

by and large the only “journal” that publishes the ID tripe is Rivista Di Biologia:

http://www.tilgher.it/(x33mv5bja11dm4f2posfps45)/index.aspx?lang=eng&tpr=4&act=fsclst

if you simply take a gander at the latest “issue”, you will see that the jounal really should be titlted:

Rivista di Apologetica

Comment #150110

Posted by Raging Bee on December 13, 2006 3:31 PM (e)

congrats!

Thanks – ’twas nothing, I assure you.

surely that wasn’t your first time getting banned from UD?

Actually, it was my first time posting there at all. Until that latest whinge, I had never seen fit to register there.

In all honesty, I’m surprised ANY of my posts got up there at all, let alone that some of them are still up. I guess even Dumbski is under pressure to try to look like he can tolerate actual debate.

Posting Behe’s own admission that there’s no science to ID was still too much for him though…

Comment #150114

Posted by Glen Davidson on December 13, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

Glen-

by and large the only “journal” that publishes the ID tripe is Rivista Di Biologia:

[…]

if you simply take a gander at the latest “issue”, you will see that the jounal really should be titlted:

Rivista di Apologetica

That they published some of JAD’s post-breakdown nonsense says it all.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #150115

Posted by Katarina on December 13, 2006 3:59 PM (e)

Posting Behe’s own admission that there’s no science to ID was still too much for him though…

Good job, Bee! I can’t believe you got banned. You’ve got more guts than Dumbski, who as far as I know, only commented a few times here and then flew away when the questions started pouring in. It helps that you’ve actually got a way to support your position, I’m sure.

Comment #150117

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 13, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

That they published some of JAD’s post-breakdown nonsense says it all.

ayup. about as concise a statement on their “peer review” process as could possibly be made.

the only place the PEH belongs is on crank.net (and it IS given the highest ranking there, BTW).

Comment #150127

Posted by Katarina on December 13, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

What kills me is that ICR does publish research-looking papers in a scientific-looking journals. Someone let me borrow one couple of years ago, and I don’t have it anymore, damned if I remember what it was called.

But the guy who gave it to me was a grown-up, a bioengineer at a Johnson & Johnson company. The inside of the front cover, in small print, disclosed that all the “scientists” who published in that journal were required to sign a statement of belief in God.

For an example of what the “research papers” looked like, see ICR’s website.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Comment #150202

Posted by L. Breckinridge on December 13, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Comment #150091 posted by Joe McFaul –

fist the Porposed findigns are widespread in the U.S. distrcit court system, usually set out in the local rules, as correctly noted.

As Kevin Vicklund pointed out, even the district court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where the Dover case was tried, requires filing of the proposed “findings of fact and conclusions of law“ only before the start of the trial. I have not surveyed the local rules of all the federal district courts of the USA, but it is probable that the local rules of some districts do not even mention these proposed findings and conclusions at all. There is no uniformity in local rules.

Since the 9th Circuit and the Supreem Court do not make fact determinationson appeal (that’s not their job), there’s no reason for those courts to have Porposed Findings.

Lesson in the law: They are not called just “proposed findings of facts“ – they are called “proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law.“. The federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court make conclusions of law.

The Ninth Circuit opinion in my case sounded a lot like my winning brief. Whole sections of my brief got lifted directly into the opinion.

I think that a judge should also present the losing side‘s arguments or rebuttals and explain why they were rejected. Did Jones do any of that in the section on whether ID is science?

Also, Judge Jones plagiarized an important “conclusion of law“ in the conclusion section of the opinion: “we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants …. from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution ….“. He did not even bother to include that prohibition in the opinion’s final order, showing that he just mindlessly copied that prohibition from the plaintiffs’ final proposed conclusions of law. If there is anyplace where Jones should have showed some independence of thought, it is here. I have had endless arguments over the meaning and enforceability of that prohibition.

Judge Jones has shown that he is just a hack, not a great mind.

Comment #150234

Posted by waldteufel on December 13, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

One cannot help but wonder what color magic decoder ring L. Breckinridge got when he finished his
Troll U. ID College of Knowledge course in law.

Yuck. What a clown.

Comment #150242

Posted by tomh on December 13, 2006 8:16 PM (e)

L. Breckinridge wrote:

I think that a judge should also present the losing side‘s arguments or rebuttals and explain why they were rejected. Did Jones do any of that in the section on whether ID is science?

Have you considered reading the opinion to find out? I am amazed at the number of posts filled with speculation and opinion on how the legal system should work, by people who have no clue about how the system actually does work. Witness the post by L. Breckinridge.

Comment #150270

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 13, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

I think that a judge should also present the losing side‘s arguments or rebuttals and explain why they were rejected.

and of course, as has been stated MANY times before, even unto your banning:

NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK, Larry.

Yes, your prose makes you immediately recognizable, Larry Farfromsane.

where’s your brother at?

In his case, he really is your keeper.