Darwinists Desperate to Defend Kitzmiller Copying

On Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter has a post about our study on Judge Jones’ copying of the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Darwinist bloggers Ed Brayton and Joe McFaul participated in the thread critiquing the study. My responses to them showed how Darwinist critiques are off-base and misrepresent the study, as well as the nature of our arguments. I include some excepts from my responses here to help readers see why the Darwinist critiques of the Judge Jones’ study don’t hold up: Hi all and thanks for this interesting discussion. I am not going to have time for more than one post, so here go a few responses: Response to Ed Brayton: It’s saddening that Ed Read More ›

Quote Marks and Citation Miraculously Appear in Text of Judge Jones’ Commencement Address

Last week, Rob Crowther reported evidence suggesting that Judge John Jones of Kitzmiller v. Dover fame plagiarized from a scholar’s book in his commencement address last summer at Dickinson College. Well, consider the report confirmed. Quote marks and even a footnote have now magically appeared in the text at the Dickinson College site. If you are quick, you can still find the archived version of the original text using an internet search engine. Ironically, the hastily added quote marks now have Judge Jones slightly misquoting the book he was using, because his unattributed copying included a couple of errors.

Local Dover Media Promotes False Information on Judge Jones Study

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

Response to Barbara Forrest Part X: Misplaced Praise

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

Did Judge Jones Fail to Heed His Own Advice?

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