Judge Jones and His Groupies

Earlier this month, the peer-reviewed science journal PloS Genetics published its latest earth-shaking contribution to the field of genetics: a personal interview with none other than Judge John Jones of Kitzmiller v. Dover fame. The interview was conducted by Jane Gitschier of the Institute for Human Genetics at the University of California San Francisco, who gushes over the Judge like a school-girl with a crush on her teacher. The non-scientist might be forgiven for thinking that a journal bearing a name like PLoS Genetics would restrict its articles to, well, genetics… or at least, to biology… or at the very least, to science. Not to worry! If the article extols Judge Jones, a lack of scientific content apparently is no Read More ›

Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour

Federal judges don’t ordinarily travel around the country speaking about their judicial rulings, but Judge Jones is no ordinary federal judge. While promoting the PBS-NOVA special on intelligent design, he recently appeared the Lehrer Newshour, where he made striking admissions that demonstrate the activist nature of the Kitzmiller ruling. Two hallmarks of judicial activism are (1) the tendency to resolve questions outside the scope of the judiciary, which are best left to other branches of government,1 and (2) the intent to make policy and influence parties outside of the case.2 Judge Jones’ own admissions on the Lehrer Newshour demonstrate that both of these criticisms correctly apply to his Kitzmiller ruling. Judge Jones’ Expansive Intrusion into Legislative Questions First, Judge Jones Read More ›

Judge Jones’ Overreaching Diminishes Impact of Kitzmiller Ruling Upon Future Courts

As noted recently, anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler believes that Judge Jones went too far when he tried to address whether ID is science in the Kitzmiller ruling. Wexler also complains that “The Judge Did Not Explain Why He Addressed the “Is it Science?” Issue” and argues that Judge Jones gives “no coherent answer” to that question: “If there is no coherent answer, then Judge Jones’ explanation that consideration of the science issue will be useful to other courts likewise falters.” (Jay D. Wexler, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is It Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 108, 109 (2006).) The implication is that Judge Jones’ ruling on whether ID is science, which was largely copied from the ACLU, is Read More ›

Anti-ID Legal Scholar: “By Defining Science, the Judge Acted Beyond the Judicial Role”

When the Kitzmiller ruling was issued, Darwinists were quick to give it nothing but unyielding praise, while many ID-proponents immediately observed that Judge Jones made findings outside the scope of the judicial system. For example, I critiqued the ruling because “[i]t overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science.” Darwinist Tim Sandefur replied, using irrelevant examples to claim that “surely a judge can decide that science is characterized by methodological naturalism.” A little over a year later, one of the most prominent anti-ID legal scholars has agreed in print with my position on this question. Wexler, an associate professor at Boston University School of Law, Read More ›

A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones’ Copying from the ACLU

Discovery Institute’s study, which found that 90.9 % of Judge Jones’ section on whether ID is science was copied essentially verbatim from the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, provoked much discussion. As expected, most Darwinist defenders of Judge Jones swept some of the criticisms of judicial copying aside while engaging in harsh ad hominem attacks against us. I have already responded to some Darwinist defenses of Judge Jones. A few other Darwinists have continued to respond, and still they fail to rebut my legal arguments and misunderstand the type of normal analogical and policy legal reasoning I employed. I close this debate with a new response to such Darwinist critics available at: “Analogical Legal Reasoning and Read More ›