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

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 10:50:35 EST

 * 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.*

Jim -- it isn't "plagiarism" in this context, and it isn't in any way
unusual for a judge to adopt one side's findings and not the other sides.
In trials, there are winners and losers. If you search my name and
"Kitzmiller" or "Judge Jones" in the archives of this list, you'll see that
last year I engaged in some lengthy arguments with Pim about the soundness
of Judge Jones' opinion. In short, I think the conclusion of an
establishment clause violation was right, but the philosophical discussion
of "science" was incorrect and misplaced. So I am no apologist for this
particular judicial opinion. However, I agree 100% with Pim that this
name-calling, which is based on a fundamental misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of how the legal system works, is wrong.

I'm rather disgusted with how this whole thing has been rolled out over the
last several days by ID advocates (not disgusted at you personally, Jim, but
at the PR campaign more generally by the Discovery Institute and other
big-time ID advocates). They need to get over Kitzmiller, put the legal
gamesmanship aside, and do some serious writing and research.

 On 12/14/06, James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu> wrote:
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712
> 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 12/13/06 11:03 AM >>>
>
> [snip]
>
> 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
> comments.
> 3. Legally speaking, the use of 'proposed findings of fact' is well
> established.
>
>
> 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
> that
> ID urged the school board not to make this a legal case. There are some
> people
> that appear to know the law in that camp. There are better and there are
> worse
> cases on which to try and establish a legal precedent.
>
> Snip all the kdv transcripts.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:   http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):   http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 14 10:51:16 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 10:51:16 EST