In a comment on a previous thread, my good friend Wes Elsberry, who literally wrote the program on text comparisons (a program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, I might add), has compared the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject. The analysis showed that Judge Jones only incorporated 48% of the findings of fact that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate. This is the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous argument. Every single precedent that they have cited showing higher court “disapproval” (never actually overturning, only disapproval) of lower courts copying the findings of fact deal with wholesale copying, i.e. where the judge accepted the entire proposed findings of fact from one side, without any selection or editing at all. And in two of those cases, the judge did so without even looking at the reply briefs from the other side or allowing them to be filed. The fact that Judge Jones incorporated less than half of the plaintiffs proposed findings into his ruling shows that he did not incorporate them either wholesale or uncritically, which is the only situation in which such behavior is frowned upon by the higher courts. As I keep saying, selective incorporation of findings of fact, even copied verbatim, is routine and accepted universally by the courts, which is why the briefs are typically phrased in the voice of the court.