Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

Recommend (3) Comments (1)

Americans United writes with a flourish: “Faced with Jones' devastating opinion, how did the pro-ID Discovery Institute react? Unable to respond to his powerful opinion, the group accused Jones of plagiarizing portions of the ruling! It was a shameful low blow and not a scientific argument, to say the least.”

They should compare the written document signed by Judge Jones to the plaintiffs’ lawyers “finding of fact” brief, given to him about a month before he issued his opinion. Here’s a short excerpt. The lawyers’ brief reads in part:

“The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’ is based on an analogy to human design. According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design.
??????????? Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, intelligent design completely fails.”

Jones’ opinion reads:

“Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’ is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.”


As I’ve written on my Amazon.com author’s blog, whenever the “Jones” opinion discusses expert testimony — on either side, by scientists, philosophers, or theologians — Jones simply reproduced that text (sometimes very lightly copyedited) from the lawyers’ document. I myself could happily copy from, say, a scholarly book on string theory, or Kant, or Aquinas, but my copying those words would be no evidence that I understood them. Similarly, as I’ve said, there is no evidence Jones understood the academic issues discussed in his courtroom. Those who have hailed Jones as some sort of philosopher-king have been badly misled.

By the way, neither I nor the Discovery Institute ever claimed Jones “plagiarized” the lawyers’ writing. Americans United’s undocumented assertion that we did is false. We were careful to point out that, as opposed to academia, in legal circles such copying is tolerated. Rather the point is that there is no evidence that Jones understood the academic issues. Citing him as some sort of intellectual authority is grossly misleading.

Recommend (3) Comments (2)

Judge John E. Jones’ opinion in Kitzmiller is 139 pages long. It is extremely well reasoned and well written. It is not uncommon for a federal judge to borrow findings of fact if they are well stated and in accord with his thoughts on the matter. Any trial attorney will tell you that this happens all of the time. This is what Jones did, in the course of a lengthy opinion. 

Legal experts in Pennsylvania said the Institute's attempts to make something of this were silly. One 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.”

This incident is a telling example of the intellectual dishonesty of the Discovery Institute — and the underhanded tactics it employs. To read more about the nature of this group, I recommend Barbara Forrest's article in The Skeptical Inquirer. Forrest, who has written a history of ID, was an expert witness in the Dover case, and her piece recounts the various personal attacks and snide comments she had to endure during the trial. (See it here: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html.)

The Institute’s attempt to defame a federal judge is bad enough, but it’s even more unfortunate that the group was able to dupe an Associated Press reporter into writing about this non-issue, which is what the group wanted all along. They lost in court and decided to launch a disinformation campaign. Shame on them.

And by the way, the Institute certainly did accuse Jones of plagiarism. This was widely reported at the time. They backed off from the allegation only after they were called on it.