After a year of careful analysis of Judge Jones' decision in
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has determined that the Judge made considerable use of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when writing the section on intelligent design as science in his decision for the plaintiff. Somehow, they think that this common practice of using the Proposed Findings of Fact from the winning side in crafting a decision makes Judge Jones a puppet of the ACLU, even though he's a conservative justice appointed by George W. Bush.
The Discovery Institute has issued a press release touting their findings as though it discredits the decision's reasoning. This press release demonstrates that they are still smarting over the loss in Dover, still spending their time doing things that have nothing to do with scientific research, and that they have as much credibility on legal matters as they do on scientific matters.
More by
attorney Timothy Sandefur at the Panda's Thumb. This press release by the DI was telegraphed by
a talk given by Michael Behe earlier this month in Kansas.
UPDATE (December 13, 2006): Ed Brayton
analyzes the DI report in more detail, including responding to its claims that Judge Jones incorporated "errors" from the ACLU into the decision.
UPDATE (December 14, 2006): More responses:
Timothy Sandefur,
"Is John West Dishonest or Just Ignorant?" and
"Casey Luskin--Not Too Bright" at the Panda's Thumb.
UPDATE (December 20, 2006): Wesley Elsberry has looked at how much of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was actually used in Jones' decision (and how much of that section of the decision came directly from the plaintiff's filing). Ed Brayton summarizes at
Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
Casey Luskin has attempted to respond with a defense, but as Ed Brayton shows,
he just keeps digging a deeper hole.
Posts
