Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?
Link to: original blogpost - comments
Categories : Evolution, Intelligent Design, Darwinism, Legal, Courts, Culture
Editor : William Dembski
published: mardi 12 décembre 2006 17:03:17
Judge Jones tours the American countryside seeking the adulation or our intellectual elite and extolling the genius of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. The press release below indicates that Jones let the ACLU essentially dictate his decision. Instead of original and impeccable reasoning, Jones uncritically took extensive material from the ACLU’s proposed “findings of fact and conclusions of law” and either copied it directly or modified it ever so slightly. Outside the legal system this is called plagiarism. But since judges are allowed to draw on briefs of the parties, this is called legal scholarship. Even so, courts frown on decisions in which judges extensively copy and paste from other briefs — which is exactly what Jones did! Wired Magazine voted Jones one of the sexiest geeks of 2005. Time characterized him as a legal genius. Truth be told, Jones is a narcissistic putz.
In case you have trouble downloading the Discovery article cited below, i.e., “A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion …”, I’ve uploaded it on the UD server here: www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Comparing_Jones_and_ACLU.pdf.
“Masterful” Federal Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU
Evolution, Intelligent Design, Darwinism, Science, Legal, Courts, Constitution, Culture,
posted by Antoine Vekris at 5:51 PM
2 Comments:
Dembski pretty clearly reveals his ignorance in things legal here.
Why not stick to your area? Esp when even within that, you've been shown to make some large errors...
My questions to Dembski would be:
Couldn't the judge be both? And even so the essential point is that ID isn't science.
One, say a judge, could gain time copy/pasting things that are truthful. So he don't need to write once more an argumentaion well made by others already. That's an intelligent way to deal with a dump problem. Isn't it?
@ Daniel.
Bill need something to be used to bring the case in front of another judge. He will try to do that 'til he dies. Hoping for a second chance to considere the "scienticificity" of ID. Don't you think so?
Behe started the crusade already, Dembski will follow, as usual.
Post a Comment
<< Home