Say what you will about Casey Luskin; his tenacity in repeating nonsense over and over again is staggering. He’s back with this response to the criticisms of the DI”s idiotic “study” claiming that Judge Jones copied the Dover ruling from the plaintiff’s briefs, in which he says absolutely nothing new. The section replying to me consists of a long-winded and pointless explanation on the importance of analogical reasoning.
Well duh, Casey; everyone uses analogical reasoning. I never questioned analogical reasoning, I questioned the validity of the analogs you claimed between the cases you cited and the Kitzmiller ruling. Every single case you cite involves judges accepting one side’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law wholesale – that is, they adopted them and merely signed their name to them. In one case that you cite, the judge did this without even considering arguments from the other side. That’s what those appeals courts objected to.
That did not happen in Kitzmiller.In one section of the case, the findings of fact regarding whether ID is science or not, your fake “study” only found that the judge agreed with many of the findings proposed by the plaintiffs and used them either verbatim or slightly reworded. What your “study” leaves out is that the judge did not accept nearly half of the proposed findings; that alone means he exercised independent judgment on the validity of each finding of fact distinct from the others and that alone distinguishes it from the cases you cite.
Analogical reasoning is only valid if the two things being compared are similar; in this case they are not. They aren’t even close. I guarantee that if you turned in the stupid arguments you’ve been making in this regard in a law school paper, you would be failed. And the fact that you keep flailing this dead horse only shows that you don’t have any good arguments to offer against the ruling.