Larry Moran: "Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived"
Darwin never even got the title "Sir" whereas some other British scientists got the title "Lord," e.g., Lord Kelvin, Lord Rutherford.
I was originally tempted to start calling Larry "Larry Moron." However, to Larry's credit, he severely criticized giving Judge Jones credit for copied material in the ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion and at the same time Larry also thoroughly bashed Fatheaded Ed Brayton. Here is some of what Larry wrote:
Ed and his followers — a dozen or so at last count — are not happy. Apparently, I have violated one of the cardinal sins of the appeasers. I have questioned one of the good guys. They want to make sure everyone understands the depth of my ignorance. Thanks, Ed, I appreciate the lesson from such an expert. . . .
. . . .Enough, Ed. I never said that the validity of his ruling was in question. I'm in no position to judge the minutiae of American constitutional law. One of the things that I didn't know was that a judge can just copy the arguments of one side and claim them as his own. I also didn't know that in your culture this can be a sign of intelligence, even brilliance. It explains a lot. Thanks for the lesson . . .
. . . .Chalk it up to ignorance, Ed. I was ignorant of the way you do things down there and of your standards for brilliance. I'll try not to overestimate you again.
Larry also said in a comment,
Referring to Judge Jones, you say ...He did not merely sign off on one side, but took the material from both sides and took a month to sort through what occurred at trial and put together a first rate summary of the issues from the materials he had been comparing and which had been debated before the bench. It was not all his own wording; but that's not a defect, nor is it a denial of the time he did spend sorting through the issues.
I find it incredible that you could say such a thing. Obviously, you have never taken the time to compare what Jones wrote to what's in the Plaintiff's submission. Any junior clerk could have copied the material in a single afternoon, making some minor changes of wording. This is not a case of picking and choosing from both sides and writing a summary that incorporates a few phrases here and there. It's wholesale copying, the order is the same and entire paragraphs are copied for 34 pages.
As I said, my biggest problem with Judge Jones is not his copying but is the one-sidedness of his copying -- his ID-as-science section was nearly entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while nearly entirely ignoring the other post-trial briefs. Also, I agree with Larry that a judge should not be given credit for what that judge copies.