Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

The Location of Dover

With appologies for the pettiness of this comment.... The article describes the town of Dover as being near Harrisburg. It is about 40 minutes by car from Dover to Harrisburg. The city of York is about 15 minutes. Dover township is in York County, forming the northwestern tip. It incorporates a good deal of farm land as well as the suburban sprawl of York. There are a number of small industries peppered near the area, but it remains a farming and bedroom community. The bulk of the population is the latter.

Now the only reason why you might imagine this is important is to understand local politics. York is a solidly Republican county and one with a staunchly conservative voting record in most areas other than the city itself. Harrisburg is more progressive. It's attracts civil servants and the legal profession as well as having a substantial underclass. Both these population groups help to nudge its politics toward the center. This is true to a lesser degree of the broader Dauphin County area. Those unfamiliar with the area might make the mistake of seeing this as a somewhat more extraordinary series of events given that it's occurred in Pennsylvania -- ie the northeast. In fact these events are very much in keeping with the political character of the area.

Finally, I'll dash in a bit of my own point of view. I graduated from DAHS in 1990. My brother still lives in the area, in our old family home. I knew some of the protagonists in this sorry tale. It's remarkable what changes when you leave home. To the best of my ability to understand it, the character of the schools has drifted right as the baby-boomers in school district employment have begun taking early-retirement. It's my generation, a product of the Reagan era who are beginning to run things. That's a broad brush stroke but with a hint of the truth. The teacher I had in ninth grade, Mr. Hamilton, taught evolution of course. We knew creationism for what it was at the time. It was the financial offspring of the Christian Coalition ascendancy. This was a conservative area as I mentioned, but not an outlying realm of the Southern Baptist convention. We were the product of a Pennsylvania German heritage. I was UCC (the former German Reformed Church). Dover UCC, for instance, is directly across from the high school. My classmates were mostly Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian. Of course most faiths were represented in some small way. These churches had and still have a politically moderate leadership. But new residents will likely dilute the former character of the area, and time will dilute the heritage of 18th century immigration -- as it inevitably must. Some new human dynamic is always evolving, and one of the unfortunate outcomes was local political leadership became ever more strongly influences by the Christian right. Maybe that's just because this is where the Republican party in general is headed. Maybe the population is growing more evangelical. To the extent this footnote in history is discussed, someone will need to look further at the area's history, politics and population to explain the motivations of the board, and the relative ease with which they pushed through their decision.

For those of you looking for heros and villains, as all of us do when reading a good story (and history is that among other things), I nominate Bertha Spahr as my heroine. She was my 10th and 11th grade chemistry teacher. I've been told that she publically refused to read the statement to classes, and when interrogated by the media, bravely stated that this was a bunch of bull. Those of us who had her in class can clearly imagine her doing these things. She's a small person but intense, like an tab of 80% cocao chocolate. She's absolutely passionate about teaching, enough to put the fear of <fill in fearful entity of choice> into the most self-regarding of football team fullbacks. I admired her then, learned a great deal (though did poorly), but that's as nothing to what I feel about her now. Wow, she's gutsy. She didn't keep quiet, and she didn't hide, and she didn't look for ways of accomodating. These are all things those of us seeking an easy life might contemplate. Not her -- she was feisty then, and apparently remains a prickly conscience in the back of Dover's mind. I hope, when the taxpayers lament their woes, the realize that for $2 million, at least the got a chance to see who was for real, who had guts, and who were the liars, cheats and cowards. All hail Mrs. Spahr.

Colineby 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for a fascinating insight into the town. Very interesting reading, though of course unfortunately not encyclopaedic. Secondly, your helpful correction about what it's near has now resulted in an edit to the article: for those interested, the Dover Town website has York 3 miles, Harrisburg 26 miles. Got any white cliffs and bluebirds? ;) Much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All hail Mrs. Spahr! We are lucky to have these kind of teachers in our midst.

Analysis of Jones copying ACLU

Propose adding the following statement from a detailed analysis of Jones vs ACLU:

West and DeWolf (2006) found that Jones drew 90.9% of his section on ID as science from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” including its errors. DLH 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is well documented how profoundly dishonest and crafty the DI and their followers are, can you provide a more neutral source for these claims? Mr Christopher 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cristopher. That is an ad hominem accusation and reflects upon you. Please read the document. West and DeWolf made a detailed quantitative side by side documentation of the parallels between Jones' ruling and the ACLU's "Findings" showing copying of "5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004"). It is publicly available and cited.DLH 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to differ with you and the ad hominem bit. On the subject of anything intelligent design related, the DI guys are proven liars, you know it, I know it, the world knows it. If they don't like being tagged liars they can stop lying. Simple math that even the iassac newton of design theory could grasp. And my question is do you have a neutral party (since they obviously are not) that discusses this subject? I'd enjoy reading a perspective that is reliable and neutral (especially one NOT from whining creationists who claim to be victims because they cannot get their religious ideas taught in public school). Mr Christopher 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack is one that disputes a claim based on who made it, However, he is disputing this claim based on the soul source of evidence for it, he wants another source, because the given source is known to be inaccurate at times, Learn the logical fallacies before you throw them around. Opcnup 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Plaintiffs request that the Court adopt the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on the evidence adduced at trial."[1] And so apparently for ~90% the judge did. It seems to me the real issue here is that the DI wants to pretend that they're victims of a activist judge or something even though it appears to be an accepted legal practice (note: John E. Jones III is "A Republican [...] appointed by President George W. Bush"). See the Panda's Thumb article about this for more info; "Verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be acceptable under some circumstances." (quoted from a 1979 court decision referenced in that post) which apparently is the case here. -- Limulus 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is at best irrelevant. Including it gives an impression that there is something strange or wrong with Jones doing so or that this is somehow controversial when this is a perfectly normal practice. The only acceptable way to include this is to have it extensively sourced and explained how this is completely normal. Even then, since it is so normal it really isn't worth noting in the article- if this were an article about how the DI tries to use the most standard boring things and twist them and present them as implying things they don't then it would make sense but in an NPOV Wikipedia article about Kitzmiller it doesn't really. JoshuaZ 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just read about it at the Pandas Thumb. DHL, I told you so! It's best to be skeptical about DI claims regarding ID.  :-) Mr Christopher 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and DHL, you can retract your misguided ad hominem statement to me now :-) Cheers! Mr Christopher 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"crafty and dishonest" is an attack on character. It does not address the argument. It remains ad hominem and for you to retract.DLH 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Scumbags" would be an attack on their character, dishonest and crafty are simple observations that can be easily proven. Calling Hitler cruel is not attacking his character, that charge can be easily proven. Calling the DI dishonest is pretty easy to prove. When I start calling them "scumbags" we can talk about attacking their character. You crack my up dude. Mr Christopher 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Invoking Hitler, that was quick. But I guess your assertion is another discussion. --41.151.6.29 (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Even then, since it is so normal it really isn't worth noting in the article"

Actually, if anyone wanted to go through the two (the plaintiff's submitted FoF and the judge's final FoF) it would be interesting to see if any points the plaintiff's made were *not* adopted by the judge. That would be noteworthy. It might be that the ~9% of difference was just due to basic editing... Hmm; I'm all curious now :) -- Limulus 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the opinion in a while, but I don't remember anything obvious in that regard and in the post-decision news conference I think Rothschild said something close to "we got everything we asked for" JoshuaZ 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

York Dispatch weighs in. Their advice is for the DI to quit whining and get a life. Mr Christopher 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice analysis here: "They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case. "That's not how scientists work," he said. "Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media." Walczak said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge. Why don't these guys go back to their 'labs,' and do something meaningful?" Walczak asked. "Oh, wait. They don't have labs. Silly me." [2] FeloniousMonk 20:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Josh and Mr Christopher are right, and this is a non-issue; another DI publicity stunt to discredit the ruling that derailed their ID PR and political campaign so they trying to repair the damage it caused. Jones' drawing content from briefs in his ruling is perfectly common and proper; judges request such briefs for precisely this reason. There is no misdeed as long as they do not copy their conclusions of law. [3] And the DI has not accused him of copying his conclusions of law: [4] We're neither able nor required to cover every one of the DI's many trumped-up attacks on Jones, of which this is just the latest. FeloniousMonk 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We should probably expect alot more of these dishonest publicity stunts by the DI and their supporters as we get closer to the Kitzmiller anniversary. Dembski is having a grand old time on his blog calling Jones a "putz" and "Narcissistic". Amazing the things the Isaac Newton of intelligent design does to fill his days. He has, what, 5 PhDs? Too funny. Mr Christopher 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I submit that this is documented analysis with detailed comparisons that references a public article. This has bearing which documents which parties Judge Jones' drew his material from and should be included. Others may add complementary material. DLH 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Following is a revised section with 3rd party references, an opinion by the US Supreme Court on such practices with further links:

West and DeWolf (2006) found that Jones drew 90.9% of his section on ID as science from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” including its errors. The US Supreme Court has "criticized courts for their verbatim adoption of findings of fact prepared by prevailing parties, particularly when those findings have taken the form of conclusory statements unsupported by citation to the record.”, 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What the DI has written either suggests they are increadibly ignorant or possibly very dishonest. If you can think of a way how we can put THAT in NPOV terms then let's talk. I do not see any benefit to the article though, to point out how ignorant the DI is on legal matters. We will NOT be perpetuating their ignorance/lies by attemtping to weave their strange brand of logic and legal "analysis" in this article. They are full of shit on this ACLU issue. This is an article about the trial, not a place to perpetuate the DI nonsense. They have a blog for that and they do a very nice job of perpetuating this sort of thing there. Mr Christopher 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You again make baseless accusations POV and ad hominem attacks. The DI has specifically pointed out legal practice and recommendations on such copying. See:

Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars DLH 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, there is no requirment our comments on the talk page be NPOV. We can speak openly and freely here, like adults. Honest and blunt even. This is a good read too - Casey Luskin...Not too bright Everyone but you seems to be able to see throught this DI charade. What gives? Mr Christopher 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And read this one as an after dinner mint Mr Christopher 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DLH: Your 'proposed statement', even in its revised form, is clearly not NPOV (and even less than the original since criticisms have been brought to your attention; have you read any of the Panda's Thumb links?) IMHO a NPOV version should have minimal impact on the article, e.g. in the Decision section changing

On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision in which he wrote:

to something like

On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision, adopting[5] much of the plaintiff's findings of fact and conclusions of law[6], in which he wrote:

As far as the DI press release goes, it might almost be better to put that in the Discovery Institute article under the "Controversy" section. -- Limulus 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and this Panda's Thumb article should be referenced too. -- Limulus 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes a big issue of West not being a lawyer but fails to not that "David K. DeWolf, J.D., Yale Law School, is a Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA". DeWolfe is well aware of the legal and ethical issues involved.DLH 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Limulus, I inserted "much of the" in your proposed edit above. The 90% figure given by the DI has already been proven to be a lie/false. And I agree that the DI's quote mining and misleading publicity stunt on this subject should go in the controversy section of the Discovery Institute article and not this one. We now have several different authors pointing out the DIs lack of legal/judicial understanding as well as it is now well documented how they quote mined several sources in an attempt to mislead the public into beliveing Jones was guilty of something wrong. With all the scientific research the ID is involved in I'm astonished they have enough free time for these publicity stunts. Mr Christopher 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this "report" is anything other than trivia, but if it's worth mention, I like Mr Christopher's modification of Limulus's wording. Guettarda 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposed statement refers explicitly to the ID as science section for which the analysis was done, not the entire opinion. That is a statement of fact, not "misleading" the public.DLH 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The DI "analysis" is deeply flawed DHL, that is why we are not going to perpetuate it here. Have you not read anything we have provided for you? They are profoundly mistaken. There opinion is significantly misguided. They are wrong, DHL. We have no duty to cite mistaken, unreliable, biased sources. They lost and have been whining like babies for a year now. Find a neutral, non-ID source if you want to be taken seriously. Good god man this is tiring. Mr Christopher 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An entertaining story, though much more to do with the DI's publicity stunts than the trial itself. One comment here suggests it may be too late to appeal such points, even if the DI had not pulled out of the case at the last moment and were still in a position to appeal. Couple of points. DLH, don't take things so personally, and try not to present DI statements without making it clear that it's their analysis. Ad homs against other contributors violate WP:NPA, but comments that an organisation relevant to the article is known for dishonest presentation are both accurate in this case, and acceptable. Unless of course it's personal because you're involved in the DI and the preparation of this stunt, in which case you would of course be expected to make a declaration of interest. As for mentioning this stunt on Wikipedia, if it does become notable enough a mention on the DI article would be appropriate as others have said, and one useful cite for such mention is here: James D. Greenberg, a partner in the York law firm Katherman, Briggs and Greenberg, said "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." .... dave souza, talk 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed Brayton has an intersting take on the DIs publicity stunt. I didn't realize the DI used MS Word to do their "research" So if the ACLU document used the word "the" and Jones uses the word "the" it got counted as a copy and paste. Those guys at the DI crack me up! Fisking the DI's "Study" on the Dover Ruling Maybe this does belong in the controvery section at the DI article. Funny how they are using this pr stunt to promote their book about the trial. DHL thanks for bringing this circus gone awry to our attention. Mr Christopher 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey DLH you'll get a kick out of this --> Study Shows Discovery Institute Copied Book For Law Review Article. Mr Christopher 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a well-publicized story. The WND source should be used. It is not an intelligent design-centered site, and even if it was, copying ACLU texts has nothing to do with pro-design bias. Tim Long 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the large number of people who have been very critical of the DI over this, you can't just insert the material uncritically. Indeed you can't just insert it as a statement of fact without showing why it is considered to be notable. It's possible to include the statement in detail, but I think most people here believe it's better placed on the DI page. This isn't a case of people trying to censor - it's just a case of inappropriately placed material. --Davril2020 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, WND? You mean the people who say that soy makes you gay? I thought they were a news parody site. Guettarda 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim you might try reading some of the discussion on this page and following a few of the links to understand the subject at hand. Then you'll understand why we won't be perpetuating the DI's well publicized smear campaign. We have no obligation to included mistaken information in an article. And this latest DI PR stunt is already covered on the Discovery Institute. Perhaps you could study up on the subject first and improve it over there? Mr Christopher 03:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim, just to be clear, the judge properly adopted much of the findings of fact and conclusions of law which the plaintiff's lawyer (NOT the ACLU) had produced as required by the court. The defense lawyer had also produced such findings: no doubt if they'd won you'd be complaining that the judge had copied AiG texts! .. dave souza, talk 11:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the editors of this page aren't agenda driven. Tim Long 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if you insist on including a rebuttal to the findings, they raised enough attention that they should be mentioned. Tim Long 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Elsberry Does the Math takes out the 90% figure the Discovery Institute has been citing. The DI figures are both false and misleading. The section of the decision in question is not 90% from the plaintiffs. And even if it was it should be noted that large parts of the plaintiffs said was not included by Judge Jones. This was not a copy, paste, and change a few words. The Discovery Institute has been making new claims about this case every few weeks as anyone who been watching these developments knows. It stinks of utter desperation. It is one of the few times they been able to get press attention though.

As for the ad hominem claims above, I am going to have to side with saying they are not credible is not an ad hominem. They have been so inaccurate and dishonest that no credible citation should be made to their literature except to cite what they themselves say. If a statement for something I completely agree with has supported by a DI citation, I would say it would need replacing with a credible citation.MichaelSH

I have more details concerning the issue of text copied in this response to Casey Luskin. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the following went into the article:

"On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision, adopting much of the plaintiffs' contentions as findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he wrote:"

Contentions is polemical POV. The "adopting much of the" phrasing is also direct DI propaganda and POV-pushing that has no place there. Trim it back to,

"On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:"

and it will be about right. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Elsberry, the DI propagandists may think they have a point with all this, but they do not; their position is legally erroneous. The fact they for whose inclusion they are pushing does not mean what they think it means. On the other hand, by acting like these facts need to be suppressed, you have risked dignifying and giving credence to their mistake. After I edited it, the statement was accurate, and not POV. I am not going to re-edit, but I urge you to be more cautious, and less over-zealous in this matter. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the DI arguments concerning textual analysis deserve space in the article, it would go in the "Criticism and Analysis" section. Folding it into a description of the decision does not inform the reader that the matter is one of argument from a group taking political action to push their agenda. As it was phrased, there was no indication that it was an argument; it was stated as fact and not even referenced. I did read the talk page before making my edit, and at the time I didn't interpret what was there as making an argument for retaining the statement as it was phrased. I doubt that keeping the section on "Decision" strictly descriptive of the decision, and leaving the rest to "Criticism and Analysis" lends "credence" to IDC whining. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'm convinced. As long as it doesn't appear that we are hiding the truth, I have no problem with that organization of the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

News flash: Something be an attack on the arguer (rather than the argument) and still not be fallacious. A fallacy requires deception. When the character of a person making an argument is relevant to the plausibility of the argument, an attack on the character of that person is no fallacy.

Here, there is no fallacy, because the argument is based on the authority of its DI proponents. DI is biased, and their bias is relevant to the argument. All their argument shows is that they, and the individuals they worked with, who represented their interest at trial, were not nearly as convincing as the plaintiff. They are trying to sell an in court loss as though it were misconduct, based upon what? Fill in the blanks. Their expertise is on the line, and therefore, an attack on their expertise, on the grounds of bias, is not fallaciously ad hominem.

However, in the interests of the encyclopedic accuracy of the article, I would concede that there would be no harm in pointing up that Jones in large part agreed with the plaintiffs. It just goes to show how when you put ID on trial against science, science really kicks butt. It's not POV pushing in my book; it's ID's funeral. Non Curat Lex (talk)

I submit this entire thread as proof of non npov to ID LordFluffington454 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@LordFluffington454: This was a dead thread from 2008. New threads are at the bottom, but please also see WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are to discuss article improvements. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Speaking of Barbara Forrest

Read it all about it, Kitzmiller followers! The “Vise Strategy” Undone. by Barbara Forrest And yes, Virginia, that is Dembski's "vise strategy" she's talking about...She even mentions our Wiki lawsuit threatening boy davescot in her article. I wonder how long until he threatens her with a lawsuit...Mr Christopher 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added the fact the TMLC made at least two formal attempts to have Forrest excluded from the trial. I put it at the end of the part where he testimony is in the article. But I wonder, should those facts be put at the beginning instead? And should we mention the DI's attempt to publicly ridicule her on their website just a few days prior to her scheduled testimony? To me it is highly noteworthy. Mr Christopher 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More on BF...The article makes these points about Forrest's testimony and I am wondering if they are relevant or perhaps just unclear:

• Under cross examination, Forrest admitted that she did not know of any evidence at all that any member of the School board had seen the "Wedge Document" prior to the lawsuit

Is this noteworthy? Did she ever claim the board had seen the Wedge Document? I know the TMLC tried to put Forrest herself on trial, but is the fact she had no knowledge of the board's opinion or insight into the wedge document relevant? Did her "admission" of not knowing what the board members might have known sway the outcome of the trial?

• that she joined the ACLU because she supports the cause of civil liberties "especially as it concerns education and the separation of church and state"

Are the reasons why Forrest is a ACLU member relevant to the article?

• and that she was also a member of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Again, is this relevant/noteworthy? If you read the Forrest testimony in its whole (and not in pieces as I have done here) to me it reads as if she' defending something or was herself on trial. I know the TMLC tried to disqualify her and make her look as if she were guilty of something, but I'm not sure we should follow that line of thinking in the article. Maybe I'm over reacting but it reads odd to me that Forrest was making "admissions" during "cross examination" and we're documenting why she joined these groups as if a justification is warranted or noteworthy. I note we are not documenting the reasons why the religionists joined their resoective churches. Nowhere does it say why Buckingham joined his church, what his motives were for picking brand X religion.

To me it seems a little odd how it is currently written, perhaps the author(s) meant for it to come off differently. I think the article could benefit from either adding clarity or removing some of this. I'm open to opinions. Mr Christopher 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just significantly added to the testimony section for Forrest. Her's is the most intersting story to me right now. She's the only expert witness the TMLC tried on two occassions to have excluded, she's the only one the DI tried to publicly humiliate, she and Jones probably get the most propaganda written about them by leading IDists still to this day. "Jones is a dirty commie because he uncritically listened to Forrest's lies" is the line you hear from prominant ID leaders. Her story and role in the trial is a fascinating one. Maybe we can add to some of the other more noteworthy witnesses as well. This article will likely get a spike in traffic as we approach the Kitzmiller v Dover anniversary. The DI is already heating things up with their stranger than fiction legal "analysis" of Jones' one year old ruling. Mr Christopher 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Example in law schools?

Just noticed a piece of gossip here: "Behe's cross-examination is now being used in continuing legal education courses as an example of how to destroy an opposing expert on cross-examination". If true and substantiated by a reliable source, this would be relevant to the article. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was Tammy Kitzmiller?

Okay from here [7] I get that she is a parent of a child who was being taught in Dover (right?). But in the listing of Plaintiffs it really doesn't tell the reader who all these plaintiffs were. Were they all parents? Were they part of any organised group together prior to this case? Information regarding who these people were rather than just names would definitely be an improvement to this article IMO.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all eleven were parents - 5 married couples (iirc) plus Tammy Kitzmiller, a single mother. They were not organised before the case - they all approached the ACLU independently after the school board passed the policy (according to Monkey Girl by Edward Humes). Guettarda 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't this be included in the article?--ZayZayEM 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's your source. I don't see why not. Odd nature 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hero?

Sounds to me like the biggest hero was the judge. I saw Humes interviewed on BookTV. He said that the judge initially refused to allow cameras in the courtroom. At the conclusion of the case, he said that he wished that he had allowed them, so that the world could see how silly the ID argument is.--W8IMP 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Settlement of fees

The article currently says:

"The school board had been offered the opportunity to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined."

This is wrong. The principle of "voluntary cessation" does not allow losing parties to escape payment of legal fees of the prevailing parties. That sentence is a POV statement from the Discovery Institute-affiliated side of the aisle. A notable statement of it was on the American Enterprise Institute site, where Joe Manzari (of American Enterprise Institute) and Seth Cooper (formerly of the Discovery Institute) said that Brian Rehm, one of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, had a “clear” conflict of interest in being part of the new school board that specifically turned down a proposal to rescind the “intelligent design” policy. The Manzari and Cooper essay had two main problems: it completely ignored the problem of "voluntary cessation", and Brian Rehm was not even in attendance at the meeting that they claimed showed his "clear conflict of interest".

See my essay, The New Antievolution Strategy: Just Make Bizarre Stuff Up. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy here. The statement in the York Dispatch is that "Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the parents' attorneys gave the former school board the opportunity to rescind its policy -- and not have to pay legal fees -- right after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but the board refused.", and that's backed up by a brief statement in the NCSE resource, also dated February 2006. The Panda's Thumb article refers to DI misinformation about a board meeting on December 5, 2005, after the trial and the election of the new board. Looks to me as though our article's right, but could do with more info re. fees not charged. .. dave souza, talk 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I misread the original statement. In the words of Emily Littella, "Never mind." Yes, the 2004 offer, before the lawsuit had gone anywhere and the lawyers had put in minimal time, would have allowed the DASD to escape paying fees, mainly because the actual infringement did not occur until early in 2005. It was the supposed "opportunity" in early December 2005 that was illusory, based on IDC advocate wishful thinking. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the school board sue the ex members of the board, as they had failed to take the legal advice they where given? and where legally responsible for the mess?--Abcdefghiabc (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Padian's testimony

A transcript, including slides, of Kevin Padian's testimony can be found here: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html. It's quite a read, but a good one, imho. If I had more time I'd make an excerpt to put on the main page. Since I don't, if anyone could do that, we'd all be much appreciated. Jalwikip 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Program on Nova - "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial"

On November 13, 2007, the science program Nova aired a two-hour episode titled Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial, which explored the background of Kitzmiller v. Dover, how both sides argued for and against ID and the impact on the community of Dover and science in the United States. I'm not sure how it should be included in this article; I will leave that to the editors of this article. TechBear 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of board members

At the bottom of the intro it says the 8 board members voting for ID lost thier seats. Later it says the Id statment was passed by the school board with a vote of 6-3. Then it says "Three of the school board members in the minority of the vote resigned in protest" which makes it sound like there were more than 3. Someone please check on the these numbers since they seem to not match each other. RocksInABox 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The three protesting members resigned (per the article) and presumably were replaced by pro-creationism members. At the election just after the trial only 8 of the 9 were up for re-election, so only they got kicked out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

death threats

Both Judge Jones and Kitzmiller herself received death threats during/after the trial. Jones was put under round the clock protection of federal marshalls, I believe the FBI was keeping close watch over Kitzmiller. I recall reading about it and it was talked about in the Nova special. Should this be included in the article? Jones discusses it in this interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec07/evolution_11-13.html

Kitmiller discusses the threatening letters she received here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_07.html

Unrelated to the death threats this Jones quote about his verdict is illuminating (from the link above)

"JOHN E. JONES III: I have. And I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuller testimony

I'm concerned about the sentence (with regard to Fuller): "His testimony provided a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design, observing that its history can be traced back to Newton and should include such luminaries of modern biology as Linnaeus and Mendel." [Emphasis mine] Although I haven't read the transcript of the proceedings, in the chapter "America as a legal battleground" in his book "Science vs Religion" the connection he draws between IDT and Newton is somewhat different. In that chapter, he argues that religious beliefs have provided the metaphysical impetus that produced Newton's laws, and for this reason IDT should not be discounted from science due to its religious nature. Newton's beliefs in Fuller's discussion seem distinct from IDT, even if they might be sympathetic to one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.127.243 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance to law

Surely this isn't near high importance to law. Something like law would be top importance, something like law in the United States or some other major country would be high. Something like this would be at most 'mid', no? Richard001 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so either, but generally apply a personal policy of letting members of other wikiprojects assign whatever importance to their project they wish to. YMMV o'course. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of quotes

Should "intelligent design" be in quotes? Are these scare quotes, or are they used for another purpose? Findright (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Quotes removed Findright (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is a proper designation of an ideology. It should be capitalized like other denominational designations. Cush (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalised, per normal English usage. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appointed by George W. Bush

This bit is added to reinforce two things: Judge Jones is not an activist judge, and his input on this case is so mainstream that a conservative like Bush would appoint him. The flaws are obvious, though. There is plenty of evidence that no reasonable person could side with the creationists on this one. The U.S. Supreme Court, armed as it is with partisan guns, still often comes to unanimous decisions. Jones's decision in this case just reinforces that logic often prevails. (Pat Robertson praying for natural disasters to hit Dover, on the other hand...) For me, the proof is in the defeat of all eight clowns on the school board who supported the ID crowd's input. As for Bush, well, conservative Republican Gerald Ford appointed the unabashed liberal John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. "Is Stevens ever too liberal about anything? He can't be! He was appointed by Jerry Ford!"

I would see fit to replace what I removed if anyone can find solid evidence of Bush disagreeing with Jones's decision. Please do not reinsert contentious material without discussion here first. SluggoOne (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

SluggoOne: Please do not delete this again; your reasoning is not logical. Who nominated the judge is not a "nonsense" fact. Why would Bush have to disagree with the decision? That doesn't make sense. I don't understand why you want factual information deleted because it has some weird connotations you imagine exist. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say the fact is nonsense. It's a fact. How can it be nonsense? That this fact is included in this article is nonsense. Show me any article similar to this one that contains this information. As far as "weird connotations [I] imagine exist," nah, you're not that unaware. Would you like me to round up news articles and blog posts that make the claim that Jones cannot be a liberal activist since Bush appointed him? I don't want to, but I can do it by the dozens. If not, please come up with a better reason for its inclusion besides "because it's true!" Sure it's true, but how is it relevant and how does it improve the reader's understanding of the subject? If you're right, why isn't Jones's age, place of birth, and nationality included in the Kitzmiller article? These truths are missing and you don't seem to have a problem with that... SluggoOne (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this fact was (i) cited by IDers before the trial as indicating that Jones would be favourable to their cause & (ii) widely mentioned after the trial, when (other) IDers tried to portray him as an 'activist judge', I would suggest that the fact is very relevant in setting the context for this trial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like about it is that I'm fairly certain he wasn't apointed by W. W. appointed the man who appointed Jones. W. also passed approval of Jones, but I'm fairly certain he was not directly appointed by W., so it's a bit misleading. Farsight001 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are "fairly certain[ly]" wrong:

...and [Jones's] appointment to the bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush

— Monkey Girl, Edward Hume, p258

"In the United States, the title of federal judge usually refers to a judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution." -- United States federal judge -- so he wouldn't have been appointed by anybody else. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hunh. I just watched the NOVA program on this trial a few days ago and I could have sworn it said that Bush merely approved of Jones. Oh well. Farsight001 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact's inclusion goes to a partisan viewpoint. Nothing presented here has touched my point that Bush's appointment of Jones has no more relevance than Ford's appointment of Stevens. That a judge went against his appointer's apparent viewpoint plays no part on hundreds of other articles, and I'm not sure why various "media mentions" merit a part here. We see no mention of Ford on any of Stevens's countless liberal decisions, and that's just one example. If this article breaks that precedent, literally hundreds of others need to be rewritten. That Bush appointed Jones is prominently stated on Jones's own page. It ought to stay that way. SluggoOne (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is stated by a number of prominent sources in the context of KvD, it is relevant for the reasons I stated above, therefore it is WP:DUE to mention it in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert without proof of consensus and/or precedent. You have claimed both but provided neither. I was alive during this case, so I do not deny that this fact was mentioned repeatedly in the media. That you could take as fact that these media mentions were the results of good faith actors is a little unbelievable. SluggoOne (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof of consensus: that you are the only one objecting to the inclusion of this material, an inclusion that has been supported a number of editors on this thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"That you could take as fact that these media mentions were the results of good faith actors is a little unbelievable" = baseless conspiracy theorising. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could link me to one article that mentions Bush's appointment but doesn't discuss the IDers like they're idiots and/or lunatics and/or massively fringe characters, I'll admit you're right. This thread doesn't constitute an RfC. (And as far as precedent goes, try not to WP:IDHT when I request it.) SluggoOne (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding that nine of the first ten links in your Google search below go to partisan sites, eight to the liberal side. SluggoOne (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that ID is discredited WP:FRINGE crankery, I see nothing about the fact that sources "discuss the IDers like they're idiots and/or lunatics and/or massively fringe characters" that discredits them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that Bush's appointment of Jones should be given WP:DUE weight in this article

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then reread my comment left at 6:03. I can't tell who you're debating with this link. SluggoOne (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POT Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

SluggoOne's view deserves more respect and to summarily dismiss ALL of ID as "fringe crankery" fails WP:NPOV as well as itself being on the fringe of current RSD (Religion Science Dialogue). RSD recognizes that ID is often challenged as being no more and no less than a political movement, easily acknowledging as with any school of thought some proponents like all of us may err, but as far as scholarly inquiry goes into whatever the ultimate relationship between God and science as found in incredibly well-received books like Divine Action and Modern Science the RSD community's mind is wide open and that certainly includes the Christian Bible. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322: Intelligent design has been thoroughly debunked, dismissed and rejected by the scientific community as having no scientific merit whatsoever. Therefore your viewpoint on NPOV ignores WP:DUE. Also your comments about 'RSD' are sufficiently garbled as to be meaningless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While ID is blatantly fringe crankery and falls under WP:GEVAL as well as WP:PSCI, there's a case for incorporating the statement that Jones is a Republican, appointed by GWB, into the lead section with a citation, rather than simply mentioning it in the infobox. That description could be added to the sentence "It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III. " . . . dave souza, talk 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for it to be moved into the lead. There's one citation for it above, plus several more from the {{find}} above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

Precedent? SluggoOne (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

ID Boxout

Why is there a boxout for ID in this article but no boxout for evolution and its related topics? Seems designed to direct people towards one side and away from the other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 November 2009

Because the school board was on trial for promoting ID, and it isn't science. . .dave souza, talk 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And because too many boxes clutter an article, and also tend to become difficult to arrange elegantly given current markup limitations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

"Citations" link in the top box is a dead link. -Craig Pemberton 05:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Candidate for Deletion

First, the paragraph:

The school board's statement asserting that there are "gaps" in evolution and that it specifically is a theory "not a fact" singled out evolution in a misleading way to imply it is just a hunch without explaining that the same applies to any other scientific theory. The presentation of intelligent design as an alternative "explanation of the origins of life" presented it as though it were a scientific explanation, in contrast to the way that evolution was described. Encouraging students to "keep an open mind" about alternatives without offering an alternative scientific explanation implied an invitation to meditate on a religious view. The school board claimed it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. The board denied intelligent design is "religion in disguise," despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian not-for-profit law center that uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values". Its stated purpose is "...to be the sword and shield for people of faith".

This entire paragraph seems misplaced in the context of the article. As I understand the article, the purpose it to report on the events surrounding the Dover court decision, etc. -- not to argue for or against the statements made by the school district. This is especially true because the paragraph seems to contain many assertion not supported by references. Example: he school board's statement asserting that there are "gaps" in evolution and that it specifically is a theory "not a fact" singled out evolution in a misleading way to imply it is just a hunch without explaining that the same applies to any other scientific theory. If this is to be included, it should contain an external source.

I'll wait to see what others think about this paragraph for a few days/weeks. If I don't hear back, I'll delete the paragraph.

155.99.218.202 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The parapraph summarises notable points pertinent to the trial, it would be good to support it with inline citations. Bit pressed for time just now, will aim to come back on this in the near future. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

five years later and still zilch from the creationists who prefer the phrase "intelligent design"

it's been 5 glorious years for science yet the ID community has yet to produce one single ID "experiment" Not one. They have failed to make a single contribution to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Not one. In five years they have failed to produce a single scientific theory. 5 years and not a shred of evidence has been discovered by the ID cult that supports the notion of a "intelligent designer". Epic and wholesale failure. Should we include these facts in the article? shoudln't there be a anniversary mention or something? I think the reader should know what complete losers the ID crowd is. ps Do you think William Dembski has a moral obligation to refund everyone who was naive enough to have given him money for one of his maths books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, Dembski teaches theology and presumably should have some expertise on moral obligations. However, if we are to include a statement along the lines you suggest, we'd need a good quality reliable source presenting it with direct reference to the trial. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a five-year anniversary article here from the local newspaper, the York Sunday News, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A shame, it may have been useful. Maybe there are some other RS retrospectives out there that have something useful to add. I do note, in accordance with the OP, that had the same trial run today, I don't see there'd be any difference. They would still have had to show some science to get their ideas taught as such, and five years later, the result would be the same. Nada. Auntie E. (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Title of book, second paragraph

In the second paragraph, is the title of the book relevant to this article. It looks (to the untrained eye: me) like promotion. I mean "Of Pandas and People" in this sentence: "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of a textbook advocating intelligent design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Log in to create account (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the central role Of Pandas and People played in the trial, I would say "yes, the title is important". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a way to make clear in that paragraph what the relevance of the book is? For example changing the sentence to something like "publisher of the intelligent design advocating textbook Dover board had recommended in a press release". In other words, clarify why Foundation for Thought and Ethics tried to join and leave the title in the article. Log in to create account (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

It actually turned up in at least three major points of the case: it is mentioned in the board's statement (that they wanted teachers to read) that precipitated the case; the purchase of the books were at the heart of the judge's accusing two board members of perjury, and drafts of the book provided indelible evidence of the link between creation science and ID (include the infamous 'cdesign proponentsists' missing link). Too much to mention it all in the lead -- but probably meaning that it does deserve a paragraph of its own in the body. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your point to my suggestion immediately above. Log in to create account (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you're pointing out the book is so important that it needs to be mentioned in the lead, in which case how about changing the sentence in the lead to "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of Pandas and People; a textbook advocating intelligent design that the board recommended, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons" instead. My point is that it would be good to have something explaining _why_ the Foundation and book are relevant, rather than just explaining _that_ they are relevant. Log in to create account (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already put a brief mention of the fact that the book played a prominent part in the trial into the lead. But details really belong in the article body. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it a lead should summarize a piece of writing, and as it stands the lead makes it seem like an arbitrary Foundation that wrote an arbitrary book tried to join the party late, but that they were both importantly relevant to the trial. Someone reading it (e.g. me) would immediately wonder what this Foundation and book have to do with the whole thing, and they should be able to know that from the lead (because the lead summarizes the article). You've added more information _that_ the Foundation and book are relevant without any information on _why_ they're relevant. Your addition uses 53 words, the initial sentence used 35 words, and my suggestion uses 33 words. In that context, my suggestion seems quite good, given that it uses two words less than the original and 22 less words than your change but still manages to explain what this Foundation and book have to do with this trial (via the words "that the board recommended") rather than just states that they are relevant, somehow. How about moving "(a book whose prominence within the trial was such that it is sometimes referred to as the 'Dover Panda Trial')" into the article and adjusting the original sentence so that it explains that the Foundation and book are related to the trial because the book was recommended by the board, or was suggested in the press release, or anything at all that explains what the Foundation and book have to do with the trial, in the lead Log in to create account (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Perspective please

In the article and the discussion here the false impression that is left is that the debate is over teaching a course on Intelligent Design instead of teaching evolution, or at the least presenting a promotional lecture on I.D as a preface to a biology course. It is more compelling to actually stick with the facts in Dover than to make stuff up. In this case we are talking about 2 sentences in an otherwise unremarkable matter-of-fact introductory statement. Those two sentence admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a "book in the libarary" that students can go read if they want to see an alternative idea to evolution. A careful read of the details in the Wike article brings this out - but all the verbage wrapped around it speaks to a fictional scenario were I.D was actually a course to be taught.

At no point does "Admitting in two short sentences to the fact that something exists" constitute teaching an entire course, nor can it be spun as a mind-bending promotional lecture of whatever is said to "exist" even if that alternative includes a "book in the library" that students can go read if they have an interest.

The spin doctoring of the facts has gotten way out of hand thanks primariyt to Judge Jones, the media and the ACLU.

BobRyan777 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your perspective is unsupported by the evidence. The board specifically changed its policy to present ID as an alternative to schoolchildren, not to just "admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a 'book in the libarary'." Of course, ID doesn't exist as a scientific theory, but as amply shown it does exist as religious apologetics unsuitable for the science classroom. Hence the court case. . dave souza, talk 23:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating key objective facts from the opening paragraph is only misleaing the reader into imagining that the issue is over an imagine course on I.D. or even an imagined lecture promoting I.D. There is no vote by the school board mandating any changes at all other than the 2 sentences speaking to the existence of I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction. The text of the article itself points this out to the reader using critical thinking. The need to eliminate that key detail from the opening paragraph seems questionalbe at best. If the text of the article had referenced voted changes to curriculum other than the 2 sentence "a book exists" your argument would have substantive support. Your comment above actually appears to argue that the 2 sentence statement was not the problem but rather some other more expansive board vote was the problem. The article does not support your claim since the only board vote - the only board action cited is the 9 sentence introduction and only the I.D portion at that (i.e. two sentences). Some may have strong feelings about it being stated to exist only as something "unsuitable for the science classroom" - but we are not talking about feelings we are talking about objective historic fact. It is supposed that your own statement above that admits to the existence of I.D. while properly disparaging it would have been acceptable. In essence you argue that it was failure to disparage the teaching of I.D. that made it so wrong to admit to its existence. However the court ruling does not make the argument that it is ok to admit to the existence of I.D. so long as it is properly disparaged. As it stands in "fact of history" it is only the two sentences admitting to the existence of a book in the library on I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction published November 19, 2004, that is being condemned. The ruling is over the freedom (or not) to admit to the existence of I.D. in a matter-of-fact fashion. The court argued that a two sentence statement admitting to the existence of I.D. violates the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The more we stick with facts and not feelings the more we allow the reader to use their own judgment. (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read your comments several times. It makes no sense. ID is not scientific and is not supported by science. It is a religious dogma best left in church not schools. That is the essence of the court case. If you have another point, please bring citations that can verify your thoughts. And write so that your points are understandable, because right now, it reads like random words. From what I can tell, you're trying to reinvent the court case. That's not supported by the facts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Marlin -- Your feeling that ID is not scientific is not being challenged in any of the text I have written. Nor am I in any way deleting any text saying that the court finds I.D. to be religion and not science. I am not arguing for evolution or for I.D. I am simply asking for the minimum level of objectivity that does not seek to mislead the reader by deleting facts from the opening paragraph that are already present in the article itself. I think this is the easy part. Section 3.4 makes it very clear that the court was opposed to I.D. And the Wiki Article shows that I.D is only mentioned in two sentences in that 1 minute introduction to the Biology class. Without those two sentences there is no I.D. in the introduction. Someone has already reverted the text 3 times which tells me that feelings are running pretty high on this one - however I am hoping that an objective approach to the facts will allow the facts already present in the article to be summarized in the opening paragraph. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@ BobRyan, you appear to have misunderstood the court ruling: I've improved references to the relevant parts which give a clear statement of the board's decisions and activities. While no doubt you have strong feelings about the issues, all statements have to be verified from reliable sources, your inaccurate feelings aren't acceptable as a basis for statements in the article. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave -- All the facts I listed in my text are already present in the article itself. My intent was not to add additional facts - merely to summarize the already existing facts in the article so that the casual reader is not mislead. Apparently there are some strong feelings present on this topic such that this objective approach is something of a new idea. I am more than happy to source reference the same quotes the same text that already exists in the wiki article but that seem a bit redundant given that this is just a summation of what the article arleady states. Section 3.4 makes it clear that the only complaint of the court was the board action related to I.D. and the fact that the court does not view I.D. as valid science. The only action that the court ruled for or against was in regard to the topic of I.D. The school board only took action on the topic of I.D. in the two sentences already present in the Wiki text of the article. Again this is just a statement of glaringly obvious facts already present in the text of the article. No rocket science here. No non-I.D. related school board voted actions are even being considered or banned by the court ruling as is already clear in the Wiki article itself. This is not the hard part. In my opinion some objectivity here would benefit the reader. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All the facts you're going on about are covered in the lead, unfortunately you seem to have failed to grasp several aspects of the case. Before discussing and agreeing the statement, the board changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design was to be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. In addition to the specific mention of ID, the board's formulation singled out evolution theory for attack, using the old creationist canard "it's only a theory" as part of the teach the controversy ID tactic which was specifically discussed in the ruling. There is of course much more, as shown in the article and in the details of the case. The ruling is explicit about the unconstitutional aspects of the board's actions, and you'd do well to study it more closely. . dave souza, talk 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave -- You are correct to agree that the facts I had placed in the opening paragraph (and that you are so focused on hiding from the reader for reasons still innexplicable) are in fact already scattered here and there in the article itself.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The two sentences in the November 2005, 9 sentence introduction (the 1 minute intro) is the point where the voted October school board policy was in fact carried out.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

2. The biology course itself was unchanged. No requirement at all in the voted action or in the announced change in November 2005 to have the book "Of Pandas and People" given as a text in the class that remained wholy devoted to evolution, nor even to be used as a reference book on evolution.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

3. The one million dollar award was given for the 1 minute introduction that went so far as to include two sentences using language of the form "there exists a book in the library" language. The court ruling found that those two sentences were religiously motivated and thus that the Lemon test applied.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

4. The fact that the emotions and feelings you have expressed here would characterize "There is a book in the library" as attack langauge - speaks for itself. The fact that you imagine that we are not allowed to admit to science theory any longer else we are "attacking" evolution is also an extreme in emotional reaction that is out of place in a matter-of-fact presentation. I believe that facts-over-feelings will eventually prevail to move this article out of the B-category.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

5.In your response above you suggest that there is a board vote on record to make the book "Of Pandas and People" a required text for the 9th grade biology class in 2005. As already stated I prefer the facts-over-feelings approach and would be very happy to have that documented fact listed in the opening paragraph --- but sadly that is not documented historic fact, it is again your appeal to feelings about the future not voted actions on record in the past. I prefer historic fact. Board actions taken and Court findings documented. BobRyan777 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob, try to be more succinct in your writing. No one has time to read run on sentences. See WP:TLDR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Marlin, your point that nobody has time to read the one paragraph above pointing to key flaws in Dave's edit warring delete of key facts from the opening paragraph (key facts already present in the article itself, and admitted to by Dave in this talk thread), points to the objective unbaised reader's "need" for having that opening pargraph summarize those facts rather than demanding that readers sift through the article looking for a clear and concise summary. I am not sure if you realized that when you posted that comment. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

misplaced comments below moved from article to talk page. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It was well done. That reference points to the two sentences (in the school board's introduction to biology statement) that mention the actual subject of Intelligent Design, as being the point at issue. BobRyan777 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BobRyan777, do you have a specific suggestion for improving this article? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that key facts that already admitted to in the article itself (and even admitted to by Dave here on the talk page in defense of his edit warring ) not be deleted from the summary of the article, since they provide key perspective. I realize that for those who may be emotionally tied to a certain slant on this article, this may seem like a novel or new idea - but I suggest that the unbiased objective reader will appreciate such an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening for the article. At the moment we simply wait while the group considers the need to be objective. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@ BobRyan777, your fringe viewpoint that it was "only a little statement" reminds me of the girl who was "only a little bit pregnant". The statement in the lead accurately and properly summarises the cited sources, and your idea of "an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening" plainly gives undue weight to the minority pseudoscientific claims of ID proponentsists. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you are factually incorrect in claiming that the two ID lines were the only problem with the disclaimer: read pages 39-46 of the decision. The lines discrediting evolution were also problematic. The unequal treatment (hyperskepticality of evolution, no skepticality at all of ID) was yet another problem. The existence of the disclaimer at all (for evolution but for no other school topics) was another problem. In Judge Jones' exact words:

Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with “Darwin’s view” and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or “view” of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student’s eyes, is contrasted with an alternative “explanation,” as opposed to a “theory,” that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative “explanation” thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary “theory.”

Howard Landman (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Location and date at start of introduction.

Hi guys,

Somewhere along the line the location and date of the trial was omitted at the start of the article. In encyclopedias, it is standard practice to get the "who", "what", "when" and "where" out of the way before delving into deeper detail. I fixed this by moving the information from further down, up to the first paragraph.

InternetMeme (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As you appreciate, your change was reverted as it had the unintended effect of changing the meaning a bit. Having looked at the lead, the opening sentence was rather long, and the fact that this was the first courtroom challenge to ID wasn't sourced. I've added a source and split the sentence so that "testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design" is separated from the (named) school board decision that began the case. The trial dates are already prominent in the infobox immediately to the right of the lead paragraph, so don't think we need to put them higher in the lead itself. Thanks for being WP:BOLD, . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

contrived dualism

The immediately surrounding “quotes” jump from footnote 7 on page 46 to page 64 to page 86, and the entire section is obviously just a bunch of editorial selections from the primary source. The footnote I would like to add is from the exact same source and explains the obscure “contrived dualism” reference:

McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1266.6: “The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence[.]’ 529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)”

Needless to say, there's no article called contrived dualism and you've done nothing to improve this article by removing a good link to irreducible complexity due to my insistence that the misleading link to dualism be removed. Perhaps you'd prefer to incorporate this explanation from page 42, or similarly illuminating material, in some way other than a footnote? If not, I'll revert again tomorrow. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My only concern, really, is that direct quotes actually be direct quotes, not edited versions, especially if we don't in some way indicate that we are the ones making edits. I'm not quite sure how the wikilink to dualism is misleading, but if that is the crux of your issue with that passage, perhaps you could raise that more explicitly here. If you feel that the whole quote is incomplete without the context, there's really two options that I would be satisfied with; one would be to put the material in the footnote in a separate quote, or the other would be to remove the quote entirely. I do think that passage reflects the judge's summary of his view on one of the key issues in this case, of whether ID is science or not, but it sounds like your main concern is really that the judge's phrase "contrived dualism" is so unclear as to be meaningless/misleading. I'm still struggling to understand the issue that you are attempting to address with these edits. Mine is really just that cited quotations be accurately quoted. Edhubbard (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't assume the bracketed footnote has been added as a verbatim reproduction of a footnote originally appearing at that location in the passage from page 64. However, I suggest that removing the pipe should help dispel any ambiguity in that regard. I imagine a footnote is probably the best way to clarify this obscure reference while not detracting from the key issues and without compromising the fidelity of the passage.

If you think about it, linking to dualism would be the least likely avenue one might hope to yield a clue as to what particular non-dualism, which masquerading as dualism, is preposterous somehow.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that while there isn't an article on "contrived dualism", there is one on false dilemma, which is a different way of describing the same thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, nice. On behalf of dualism, non-dualism and dark matter/energy with a smirk, I'd have gone with “contrived dichotomy”. Only something of the fragrance is lost in translation. A link to false dilemma seems like a hard sell though, unless, the term is actually used. In deference to which, I'd put it in the “nice to have” column for now, yah?

Thing is, how scientific it ain't, as an objective child might say, doesn't matter. What's illegal is promoting religion in public school, scientific or no. Now, as any deluded little hooligan will tell ya, that's easily the more plausible of ID's claims, because century after century of torrid details of science's jilted deities, including the ménage à trois at university, are right there in the history books, (not the phony ones). Right, so, the kid wearing a robe actually said their other claim, you know, the one about Genesis, really is about Genesis and he'll grant that's plausible, or not, or drinks are on him, or oh y'ah, whatever those science guys said and stuff is like, so totally true.

If consensus on a format (not too prolix) just ain't on the dance card, I agree, removal is an acceptable Plan B, but I doubt it would come to that. I've more or less read “key issue” as “keenly notable”.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Kitzmiller decision itself uses the phrase "false dichotomy" ("ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock))." p71) -- which is clearly talking about the same thing as false dilemma. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A piped link to false dichotomy is fully in order, as that article starts with "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." That includes false dichotomy as an alternative name, and the example given covers the ID argument well: "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle." That article needs improvement including more sources, but it's obviously appropriate. . dave souza, talk 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"botany teachers" ?

This has to be wrong. I don't think there were ANY "botany teachers" at DAHS, and I've never known any US high school that had even one. I believe that the people who were forced to view the DVD were a subset of the science teachers, including the biology teachers.

The exact teachers who watched the video included:

• Jennifer Miller (senior biology teacher, anatomy & physiology teacher); reference her cross examination (trial transcript day 7 PM page 25 lines 14-23)

• Bryan Rehm (physics teacher); reference his testimony (trial transcript day 2 PM page 47 line 17 to page 48 line 9)

• Bertha Spahr (science department chair, chemistry teacher); reference Rehm testimony above

• Robert Eshbach (biology, environmental science, and ecology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above

• Leslie Prall (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above

• Robert Linker (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above

and possibly a few others.

I'm going to change it to "science teachers" unless anyone has a better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Landman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "science teachers". The target of the school policy/curriculum statement was biology, but that's not the topic. It makes sense for the chair to be involved in what will impact her teachers, but she is not bio. High schools often have combined "science" departments with overlapping specialties. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading the sentence carefully, I ended up going with "biology teachers". The reason is that, while we know from the testimony who actually watched the video, we don't know precisely who was ASKED to watch the video. I got the feeling from the testimony that it MIGHT have been just the biology teachers, with Rehm and Spahr coming along for moral support and/or outside expertise. That being said, I don't have any major objections to "science teachers" either.

In terms of "overlapping specialties", I think I remember seeing that Eshbach taught Chemistry one year, even though he's nominally just a biology teacher.Howard Landman (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ydr.inyork.com/story/doverbiology/79527/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050928211400/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910065140/http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219280 to http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219280
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927003206/http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8657/attorney-from-first-national-case-on-intelligent-design-to-speak-to-su-1.1235603 to http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8657/attorney-from-first-national-case-on-intelligent-design-to-speak-to-su-1.1235603
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220053937/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511040224/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html to http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130105132526/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3535139
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060737/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm to http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/News/evolution.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209184221/http://www.edwardhumes.com/p/books.html to http://www.edwardhumes.com/p/books.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203065945/http://www.aei.org/event/1169 to http://www.aei.org/event/1169
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910084145/http://www.pepperlaw.com/webinars/Intelligent%20Design%20of%20High%20Stakes%20Trial%20Win%20Webinar%20Recording.wmv to http://www.pepperlaw.com/webinars/Intelligent%20Design%20of%20High%20Stakes%20Trial%20Win%20Webinar%20Recording.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)