The Discovery Institute is up to their same old tricks of using poor logic and rhetoric to attack their enemies (i.e. anyone with a brain). This new attack against Judge Jones is meant to mark the one year anniversary of the Dover decision, in which intelligent design was ruled as repackaged creationism.
Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a "masterful decision" based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of "whether ID is science" came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.
Shame on Judge Jones for doing what every judge in the Nation is supposed to do! Why, who ever heard of a judge actually using a findings of fact document presented by attorneys.
James D. Greenberg, a partner in the York firm Katherman, Briggs and Greenberg, said, "A judge doesn't adopt findings of fact until he hears (testimony) and agrees it supports those facts.
"Any judge who is efficient and well-versed in the law takes advantage of the findings of fact. It's par for the course. Any attempt to make a stink out of it is absurd.
Oh, an efficient and well-versed judge will make use of a findings of fact. Now it all makes sense why creationist organizations such as Discovery Institute criticize him. People who are efficient and well-versed don't typically fall for pseudo-scientific scams.