Revisiting Dover: How Brilliant Was Judge Jones' Decision?
As a Pennsylvanian, I had great interest in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania, which was ruled upon by Judge John E. Jones III about one year ago. Judge Jones’ decision was greatly praised throughout the nation.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called it “historic” and “truly a victory for the constitution.” The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) referred to Jones’ opinion as “comprehensive and detailed” and called it a “must read.” The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) said “Judge Jones clearly understands that evolution is strong, powerfully documented science….” You can read the praise given by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and other groups at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/316_praise_for_the_emkitzmiller_12_22_2005.asp, all praising Jones for his outstanding and masterful ruling.
The media also praised Judge Jones. The New York Times called Jones’ decision “striking” and praised him for his “integrity and intellect.” The York Daily Record said that Jones’ decision was “exactly right.”
All that praise is enough for any student with an interest in government to marvel at such an outstanding judge with hopes of one day being like him—making such an important ruling and receiving the praise and respect of a nation for saving science education. But then the story takes a turn. It appears that Judge Jones’ brilliant, “comprehensive and detailed” opinion is not his own. The ideas that he so brilliantly put forth are not his either.
A report released this morning shows that 90.9% of Jones’ opinion on whether intelligent design is a science is copied verbatim from the ACLU’s “Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” submitted to the judge a month before his ruling. No wonder the ACLU praised Jones so marvelously. It wasn’t because they saw Jones’ ideas so brilliantly presented. Rather, they saw their own ideas so meticulously copied. For the report, please visit www.discovery.org/csc.
As a student, I’m required to submit nearly all my papers to a website called Turnitin.com. Turnitin.com helps professors check for plagiarism in papers by reporting how much of a particular paper was derived from other sources (books, other papers, websites, etc.). Professors typically allow up to 10%—nicer professors, 15% —of verbatim copying, because Turnitin.com doesn’t account for properly cited quotations. Typically, a paper of which 20% or 25% and above is not original receives a failing grade, either for plagiarism or for simply not using one’s own ideas. We are always told that a paper should be our ideas and analysis of a certain topic, with proper guidance by others (the sources). A paper should not be someone else’s ideas and analysis guided by us.
In over 6,000 words, only 546 were Jones’ own. Quite frankly, Judge Jones would have failed out of Baylor University with that opinion. Jones said in his, I mean, the ACLU’s decision that “the students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserve better….” I agree, Judge Jones isn’t much of a judge as shown in this decision. He would, however, make a great office assistant copying papers for someone.
Apparently it is commonplace for a judge to copy portions or otherwise rely heavily upon documents provided him by whichever side his decision supports. At the very least, certainly there is no prohibition against plagiarism of this kind. Judges are free to do it.
But don't be duped into thinking that's the end of the discussion… Judge Jones demonstrated that he gave virtually no consideration to testimony from the defense. If he had, he would not have been able to copy the ACLU documents. There were blatant, provable factual errors in the ACLU docs and Jones duplicated these in his decision despite the fact that the defense corrected those errors in their testimony.
This gives the appearance that Jones wasn't concerned in the least with anything the defense had to say, which means Jones abdicated his duties as an impartial judge, and that the trial was a put-on.
So it's not the plagiarism that's really the core problem. It's what the plagiarism, by virtue of the factual errors it perpetuated, reveals about whether Jones gave the defense a fair hearing and actually considered, even for one moment, any of the testimony put forth by the defense.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
To answer Diaboli:
I don't know that I would call it "standard" practice, but judges are legally permitted and often do copy portions from briefs that are submitted to them. Notice that I did not say Jones plagiarized the ACLU, nor did I say that he wasn't allowed to copy the briefs.
My complaint was that first, he copied 90.9% of the section in question from the ACLU. When you copy 90.9%--even if it is legal--either the side you copied is completely correct and so articulate that you could not have said it any better or you have come into the trial with a bias.
Second, much of what Jones copied was simply wrong. For example, during the trial biochemist Michael Behe was presented with articles discussing the evolution of the immune system. Jones writes that Behe said these articles were "not good enough." That was a direct quote copied form the ACLU. Actually, Behe said "It's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to different subject." Judge Jones not only copied the ACLU--he didn't pay attention during the trial.
Finally, you totally missed the analogy of students writing papers. No kidding Jones isn't a student writing essays, I'm glad you observed that. My argument was that even a student writing an essay needs to use his or her own ideas and draw his or her own conclusions--not merely copy another source. If a student has to, how much more one who decides the education of a student?
The way I see this is that it is useless to complain now, after a whole year. If only Dembski and Meyer had been there, things may have been different. We need to move on and look for a better court case. Preferable something where all ID-experts take the stand. The numbers increase each year.
If only Dembski and Meyer had been there, things may have been different.
I doubt that. Jones apparently made his decision within the first week.
We need to move on and look for a better court case.
You're right that ID proponents themselves may need to pick a case. I always think it "interesting" when Darwinists charge that ID proponents are trying to force ID using the courts. So far ID proponents have always been defendants in these types of cases, so by any reasonable sense it's the Darwinists trying to force people to conform to their worldview.
But wait! Isn't it standard
But wait! Isn't it standard practise for judges to do exactly what Jones did? He isn't a student writing essays. Those proposed findings are used in just such a fashion in courts.