I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, December 15, 2006

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.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> People have argued that Jones‘ “plagiarism“ of findings of scientific facts should be excused because he is not a scientist. <

No. They don't need to be excused because they are not plagiarism.

You can't really be that dense.

Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:48:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>> People have argued that Jones‘ “plagiarism“ of findings of scientific facts should be excused because he is not a scientist. <

No. They don't need to be excused because they are not plagiarism. <<<<<

It is plagiarism in a general sense but not in a legal sense. That is why I put plagiarism in quote marks, you stupid fathead.

And Jones had no good reason for pretending that all that material that he copied verbatim or nearly verbatim -- over 90 percent of the ID-as-science section of the opinion -- was his own.

You can't find fault with my main points here, so all you do is quibble over trivia.

Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> It is plagiarism in a general sense but not in a legal sense. <

Only if you re-define the word. In that case "plagiarism" might be a type of tennis ball.

Please let us know in the heading if you do not plan to write in plain English, you stupid fathead.

> And Jones had no good reason for pretending that all that material that he copied verbatim or nearly verbatim -- over 90 percent of the ID-as-science section of the opinion -- was his own. <

It was if he agreed with it. If someone tosses a coin and another states it comes up heads, then a third also believes it to be heads, is it not his own opinion?

> You can't find fault with my main points here, so all you do is quibble over trivia. <

That is a statement that I could make about you. The difference would be that my statement, unlike yours, would be accurate.

Monday, December 18, 2006 6:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't find fault with my main points here, so all you do is quibble over trivia.

How can there be so much irony on a blog owned by someone with no sense of irony? It's...ironic! (Moronic, too, but that's another matter...)

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home