[asa] The Swift-Boating of Judge Jones

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 13 2006 - 12:03:56 EST

It seems that the PandasThumb predicted correctly the new "talking
points" of the Discovery Institute, after the MP3 of a Behe lecture
was published in which accusations of 'plagiarism' were made.
See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html

It is in this context ironic to note that PT also discovered a
significant level of 'self plagiarism' by some DI authors.

The 'argument' is that more than 90% of the Judge's ruling is copied
'almost verbatim' from the ACLU's brief.

Some interesting comments

1. Using the DI's concept of 'almost verbatim' one has to reach the
inevitable conclusion that 100% of the human genome is almost verbatim
found in chimpanzees.
2. The finding ignores that the Judge, while using the findings of
fact, placed them in a coherent argument, while adding his own damning
3. Legally speaking, the use of 'proposed findings of fact' is well

So it seems that the DI is just annoyed how they messed up the
Kitzmiller situation. Interestingly enough, the court record contains
how amateurish the DI was in filing their amicus brief

-----------begin quote------------
    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.

-------------end quote-----------------------

Seems once again that ignorance is Intelligent Design's best ally and
worst enemy at the same time.

What fascinates me is how the various Christian DI activists are
ruthlessly attacking a fellow Christian, disparaging his

See: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1854


Dembski's "Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?"
formerlly "Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?"

When people noticed this

Your take on Judge Jones concerns me Mr. Dembski. Here a judge listens
to the evidence, makes a judgement in agreement with Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law presented by the ACLU. Now suddenly he is a
narcissitic putz!?! Just a few months ago you had agreed to make an
effort to conduct yourself in a more honarable fashion. What would
JESUS do? Would JESUS resort to name calling? I don't think so. I know
my comment won't get posted, becasue anything that disturbs your
equilibrium never seems to find its way onto your blog. Just one more
sign of the weak platform you stand on.

Dembski responded

"Okay, I changed putz to schlemiel. Satisfied?"....

When people continued to point out the vacuity of ID's arguments, they
were banned. A good tradition on Uncommon Descent...

Teach the controversy only seems to apply to issues that are comfortable...
It's time that we as Christians decide where we stand and if it is
worth remembering Augustine's wise words?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 13 12:05:18 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 13 2006 - 12:05:18 EST