be sure the facts will find you out

Remember the false plagiarism charges that Joe Carter, echoing (but certainly not plagiarizing) the Discovery Institute, leveled against Judge Jones, he of Dover renown?

Ed Brayton reports that fellows of the same Discovery Institute tried to republish part of a book as an original law review article.

Following Irons's revelation of the virtual identity of the Traipsing book and the MLR article, DeWolf, West, and Luskin agreed with the the MLR's insistence that they write a new article, which was finally submitted on September 28, with the new title, "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover." This "new" article borrowed heavily from the Traipsing book, but Irons and the MLR editors agreed that it was sufficiently revised to meet (barely) the requirement of "original" work. In response, Irons wrote a rejoinder, titled "Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design." Both articles will be published in the MLR's next issue, in January or February, 2007.

Professor Irons concluded his study with these comments: "It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) [emphasis added] from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff's lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as 'original' work a law review article that was copied 95 percent from the authors' own book. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue."

Of course, to undercut credibility, credibility has to exist in the first place.

Update: According to a U of M law prof, the whole issue is one giant confusion. But Ed Brayton isn't quite convinced.

Update update: It's all just a big misunderstanding based on miscommunication and faulty memory, Ed Brayton reports, hearing from the Law Review editor at last.