Judge Makes a Monkey Out of Himself in Evolution Case

The media reported that Judge Jones shot down arguments from Intelligent Design advocates.
*********************

A popular Creationist Website has a startling report about judicial misconduct. Their report follows:

Judge John E. Jones has become somewhat of a celebrity of late, traveling and speaking about his judgment against the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board on December 20, 2005. He has stated that he felt his opinion should set forth the case once for all that intelligent design is not science but religion in disguise, and wanted to write it such that it could be used by other courts in other states so that they would not have to argue from scratch. He has been declared an “original thinker” and has been praised by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the year.

Now it turns out that 90.9% of his 6,004-word opinion about whether intelligent design is science was lifted “virtually verbatim” from ACLU documents. A new study released today on Evolution News details the comparisons and discusses its implications. The entire study can be downloaded from Uncommon Descent and Discovery Institute. Here is the Executive Summary from the study conducted by the Discovery Institute:

In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim1 from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.

While it is not uncommon for judges to quote material provided by the lawyers in the case in their rulings, the extent of his borrowing is “stunning,” according to John West, co-author of the study, considering how much credit Jones himself has taken for it. “For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science,” West wrote. “As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part.” The Discovery Institute had early published an analysis of the arguments used in the Dover decision in a book entitled Traipsing into Evolution.

(continued- click "WEDNESDAY" below and scroll down for rest of story)