Important conclusions of law in the Dover opinion were ghostwritten by ACLU

People have argued that Jones‘ “plagiarism“ of findings of scientific facts should be excused because he is not a scientist. However, the conclusion section of the opinion has an important “conclusions of law“ statement that was plagiarized from the plaintiffs. Here is what the conclusion section said:

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.(emphasis added)

For comparison, here is what an ACLU brief said:

351. In order to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause, and Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is necessary and appropriate to enter an order enjoining defendants from implementing their biology curriculum change, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to an alternative theory known as “intelligent design.” (emphasis added)

I am particularly concerned about the following prohibition: “we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants …. from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution ….“ . Jones did not even bother to include this prohibition in the opinion‘s final order, showing that he just mindlessly copied this prohibition from the plaintiffs‘ final briefs. If there is anyplace where Jones should have showed some independence of thought, it is here. I have been in endless arguments about (1) the interpretation of the words “denigrate“ and “disparage“ in this prohibition, (2) whether this prohibition applies to criticisms of evolution that were not reviewed by Jones ( he reviewed only ID and irreducible complexity ), (3) whether this prohibition is contrary to the Supreme Court‘s statement in Edwards v. Aguillard, “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught” and (4) whether this prohibition statement is enforceable, since it appears only in the opinion‘s conclusion section and not in the opinion‘s final order.