Re: [asa] The Swift-Boating of Judge Jones

From: James Mahaffy <>
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 10:34:39 EST

James Mahaffy ( Phone: 712 722-6279
498 4th Ave NE
Biology Department FAX : 712
Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>> PvM <> 12/13/06 11:03 AM >>>


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.

Don't we call this ad hominen. It has NOTHING to do with the question
of maybe copying too much of one side's briefs.

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

You may be right on 3 - but this much coping may be frowned on.
I know the court system allows judges to use briefs from either side,
but this much plagiarism would get a student kicked out of Dordt. At
least it may mean that it was more the good argument of the ACLU and
not the brilliant interpretation of the judge.

Pim said
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

to which I said
Maybe, but it may just show how irritated some people were. I believe
ID urged the school board not to make this a legal case. There are some
that appear to know the law in that camp. There are better and there are
cases on which to try and establish a legal precedent.

Snip all the kdv transcripts.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 14 10:35:16 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 10:35:16 EST