| Revision as of 19:22, 22 December 2005 editQuadell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users107,341 edits →Kitzmiller conclusions as wikisource← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:23, 22 December 2005 edit undo152.163.100.204 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| penis | |||
| == Case number == | |||
| Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District is the full name-- I just set that to redirect here, but should we make that the main article? ] 02:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Aren't only cases that reach the Supreme Court named "<petitioner> v. <defendant>"? All other cases are "<petitioner> vs. <defendant>" if I'm not mistaken. ] 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. There is no difference between v. and vs. and usage does not depend on the court in which the case is heard. The most commonly used legal manual of style uses v. in all cases, and that is general practice, but it is a matter of preference and either one is acceptable. -] 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, the practice which you will now find used almost universally in U.S. law school textbooks, opinions, and court briefs, is "v." - this would ''definitely'' be the preference in any U.S. federal court decision, such as this one. ] ] 21:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Numbers associated with the case: | |||
| 04-CV-2688, 2005 WL 578974 (MD Pa. 2005) | |||
| I've not done citations in Misplaced Pages style before. ] 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :To be really picky there is an "et al" in the defendants as well. I notice that other Misplaced Pages articles don't put in "et al" that are technically part of the title. And a lot of places will simply call the case Kitzmiller v. Dover. -- MSH | |||
| == Background == | |||
| Anyone want to write a background section? We have the event leading up to the case, the pre-trial hearings, etc. The various sides fight it out in the press and we also have the reporters who did not want to do a deposition that they where asked for. -- MSH | |||
| :Hi MSH-- | |||
| :Great work on this so far! We will definitely take a crack at the suggestions you made. I encourage you to consider registering a username to make communication and editing tasks easier. That way people can leave you messages on your talk page and keep track of changes you made, since you do not have a static IP address. Just click up at the top, choose a name and password, and you are good to go! Then you can do cool things like keep a watchlist of articles you follow and see a list of all your contributions, as well as sign your comments with four tildes like this -> ] 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::MHS, I think the background is a clash between: | |||
| ::#those who believe in God, and don't want science "abused" (as they see it) to indoctrinate schoolchildren into a materialistic philosophy that claims people could come into being '''without being created on purpose'''; and, | |||
| ::#those who do not believe in God, and are equally outraged by using the trappings of science and logic to argue that there is '''any room''' for the possibility of life having being created on purpose. | |||
| :::''{]. Indeed a quick examination of the people involved disproves this claim. -- ] 4:30 Central 29 September 2005}'' | |||
| ::Probably not one person in 20 is even interested in taking an scientific (i.e. objective) look at the issue. 19 out of 20 say that the facts are on their side, and that's all they care about. | |||
| ::I think Darwinist are correct about the politics of intelligent design. They see it as undermining their view that human orgins can be explained without God. They want to be able to say that the debate is over and that their side won. ID advocates are trying to use the courts to force the debate to be re-opened. | |||
| ::Personally, I think evolutionists need to prevent open debate, particularly in public school classrooms. Debate allows logical thought to enter the arena, and that's always bad for anyone pushing a doctrine. ] 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Ed-- the suggested broader background you have referenced is discussed at length on ], ], and ]. In addition, your comments reflect a misstatement of the ], which is limited to falsifiable hypotheses that are testable through empirically observable phenomena. Because the ID proponents have not been willing to debate by presenting evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals (another hallmark of scientific method), this court case is the first chance that the issue can be debated openly and objectively. At any rate, the background to this specific case is probably all that needs to be here, with links to the larger articles, many of which are already linked. The intelligent design article already has some pretty good background on the case. ] 07:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL, I note that you are seem to be (a) ignoring the substance of what I said and (b) declaring that I've made a mistake, which you then go on to "correct". This doesn't help us get articles written. | |||
| ::::I think I'm going to have to write an over-arching article which presents the viewpoints of both camps fairly. Evolutionists see creationists as doing this, trying that, forgetting / omitting / misunderstanding the other. On the other hard, creationists see evolutionists as having such and such an agenda, confusing this and that, ignoring the other, etc. That would be a balanced, unbiased analysis. And actually I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge! But our encyclopedia really needs '''someone''' to do this. | |||
| ::::Currently, Misplaced Pages articles side (or tend to side) with the view that '''evolution is correct'''. This is a violation of ], since there is considerable controversy on the matter. 99.8% of biologists and 95% of scientists in general are in conflict on this point with around 50% of the general population (depending on country). In the U.S. only about 10% to 12% of the general population rejects creationism and accepts evolution. | |||
| :::::There is not considerable controversy among scientists -- the claim that 99.8% of biologists are in conflict is a plain falsehood. Every science organization and every biology department supports not only the '''fact''' that evolution occurs, but also the ''theory'' of evolution that explains how it occurs. It is not a violation of NPOV to tell the truth. As for the views among the general population, that's merely a statement about how widespread ignorance is on this subject; in itself it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of evolution. -- ] 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Note that this breaks down to around 45% of Americans embracing creationsm straight out, and another 40 to 45% (approx.) believing that God created life '''through gradual stages''' - a view which Misplaced Pages articles need to compare and contrast with the materialistic, no God needed theory of ]. | |||
| ::::There is plenty of mendacity on both sides! I'm the first to admit this (well, maybe the second ;-) and there's good reason for evolution advocates to be suspicious of ID adherents. But all I'm concerned about here is how to craft an objective, unbiased look at the entire controversy - without having Misplaced Pages endorse or reject any particular view. ] 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I suggest you start by reading the well-known book by the first witness called in the trial. That should clear up a lot of confusion about this matter. Your plans for writing another "teach the controversy" type overview will simply be duplicating efforts already available on the site. I suggest adding to existing pages if you feel there is something missing. ] 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The claim that "''Misplaced Pages articles side (or tend to side) with the view that evolution is correct''" is itself a POV, and one almost exclusively found by those here who push creationist POVs or have an ideological ax to grind, I'll add. Most who are not so polarized feel that Misplaced Pages's evolution related articles are reasonably balanced. Those who refer to other editors here (and scientists elsewhere) as "evolutionists" when there are other, more accurate, less charged terms available are dealing in intentionally devisive stereotyping that has no other purpose than to additionally charge the debate. | |||
| ::::::Jokestress' additions to this article appear grounded in fact and well-cited. I see no POV issue with them or the article. ] 16:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| A fine example is presented by "Uncle Ed" of the sort of <s>dishonest ploy</s> Creationists are wont to use. Once one sees the science being described as "darwinist" one knows that someone is pulling the same old, threadbare wool over your eyes. "Uncle Ed," <s>don't pretend</s> to want "fairness" with us! There is no substance in the "substance" you are peddling. <s>Your sort of dishonesty</s> has NO place in any encyclopedia. Report the facts (given the anti-intellectual superficiality of the press on any issues scientific, <s>you really should be satisfied</s>) here as you will, but expect any creationist "spin" of the facts to be deleted immediatly. (May others pardon me for the rather sharp retort, but I would rather warn Ed someone's on his tail from the start than let him (?) pretend the usual la-di-da about "fairness" will allow him to rule other writers.) ] 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please review ]. I have marked up with HTML strikeout formatting a few that you made about me. ] 23:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've said enough, 'tis true, though I am unimpressed by your "corrections." I remain watchful. ] 23:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I am taking an 11th grade Biology class as part of my requirememnts to graduate in 2007. Alongside with a unit in Evolution, goes a unit on Homeostasis, Ecology, , Energy, Matter and Organization, Continuity, and Growth and Development. These requirements can be found here: If you are so against Evolution being taught in schools, why don't you then petition to get it changed? It doesn't go against the moral ethics of the schools to teach Evolution. My teacher, at the start of unit, said that we weren't going to be discussing religion or go all "Religion is the only way of life". If you don't like the fact of evolution, then don't talk about it. It's as simple as that. --] 21:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh trust me, they're doing a lot more than — ]|] 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Opening statements== | |||
| I did a crude version of the opening statments. These will need looking at when transcripts become availiable. | |||
| In any even, anyone please feel free to expand on what the two lawyers said here. A more talented writer might want to clean up my language as well. The defense opening statement part especially needs some work. Most sources seem to give little coverage of that statement include . The NCSE podcast linked to as a reference has the most details. Possibly the defense lawyer failed to capture anyone's imagination for good or for ill. But that is speculation on my part and does not belong in the article. ] 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The Dover School board statement observes that Pennsylvania requires the teaching of evolution. The statements informs students that materials on Intelligent Design are available. It refers discussion on origins to parents. The statement does not mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. The only mandating part is that students be informed that Intelligent Design exists and that materials on it are available in the library. | |||
| Accordingly I corrected the statement that the teaching is mandatory to that materials are available, and noted that evolution is what was mandated. | |||
| --] 13:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Just in case of any future edit wars: "The School Board in Dover, Pa., however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction in intelligent design. (The matter is now in court.) Intelligent design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer says." Meyers is part of the ] and certainly a big-name ID advocate and certainly not someone biased towards the ACLU's story. One could also just read the transcripts. ] 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikilinks to expert witnesses == | |||
| I have been trying to figure out the best place for wikilinks to expert witnesses like Kenneth R. Miller, Barbara Forrest, etc. I have been thinking about some kind of annotation along with links to their pretrial statements. Thoughts? ] 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I would assume subsection for each one of their testimony. But I would not worry too much as of yet. When the trial part of this case is finished then it would time to reorganize all the materials into a coherent whole. ] 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved trial documents == | |||
| This was getting unwieldy, so I moved the court materials to ]. ] 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Buckingham== | |||
| I have already edited ] to reflect the source of the donation, but I am wondering how it needs to handled here. Basically the source of the donated copies of Pandas was Bill Buckingham's church where Buckingham asked for donation . This comes a very sticky Neutral Point of View issue: Buckingham appears to have committed ] in his . Look at page 17 of the PDF which is page 57-58 of the transcript where he denies all knowledge. This is not going to be the only claim that Buckingham has now lied under oath . | |||
| :Some more info has come up that casts severe doubt on Buckingham's testimony on day 16. Buckingham's excuse about his use of the word creationism in the Fox 43 interview was that he ambushed. The reporter has now directly contradicted Buckingham . Also since I wrote the above, the above further example of Alan Bonsell came up. Judge Jones clearly thought that Bonsell lied in his testimony. By all accounts Jones was fairly mad when he asked Bonsell if he knew during deposition that he was under oath. ] 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Condensing witness info == | |||
| The article is getting a bit unweildy again. I propose we remove the separate heading for each witness and just start each paragraph with their name, date of testimony and a summary of their testimony. If we want, we can bold the names, but I don't know if that's necessary. Notable names would have links to their bios anyway, which would stand out. Thoughts? ] 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. ] 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It doesn't seem to make any sense to me to include a laundry list of witness names. I would remove any entries with a name, date, and nothing else. ] 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Intelligent Design and Darwin == | |||
| Could it not be said, though, that Intelligent Design and Darwinian theories of evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts? The Intelligent Designer could have intently launched a process aeons ago that would follow the pattern described by Darwin. ] ] 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes and no. In the broadest sense ID does not contradict "Darwinian theories of evolution" in the sense that utterly nothing contradicts ID in the broad sense. That is why ID is not science: I can think of things that can disprove any "Darwinian theories of evolution" but not ID. That God is or is not behind evolution is something that science cannot address. As for the compatability of ID and evolution, well IDist Michael Behe does accept that we share a common ancestor with a chimp. On the other hand, many strong opponents of intelligent design, Kenneth Miller for example, fully accept the existance of a personal God. In practice, most ID advocates deny common descent and pretty darn close to all of them (and possibly outright all of them) deny that God set up a universe where life could form naturally and then undergo Darwinian evolution. The minority of IDists that are not special creationists would (to oversimply) replace the created kinds with the created flagellum and other specially created biochemical machinaries. In contrast, mainstream science thinks that it has made progress towards the understand the natural evolution of the flagellum. This is so even for the theists like Miller. Miller in the trial used the analogy of the 2004 World Series win by Boston. Maybe the Socks won because God wanted them to . But that is not science . Science would exclusively examine things like batting averages and other non-supernatural factors . I might add to Miller's analogy that the ID advocates are basically saying that we can't in anyway understand the course of baseball games using things like batting averages, pitching, morale, the crowd, the officials, etc. but must look at who God wants to win. Science seems to get along just find using things like mutation, natural selection, recombination, mass-extinction, endosymbiosis, and other factors to understand evolution. Again that does include Miller. The IDists want to deny that those factors and even any factors yet to be discovered could have done it and go straight to God or designer depending on the audience. Also, many scientist's object to "Darwinian theories of evolution." They would drop "Darwinian" since the field has advanced quite a bit since Darwin and since we usually don't say "Daltonian theories of atoms", etc. Finally, mainstream scientists don't just object to the supernatural stuff, but rather say that the arguemnts and "facts" of the ID advocates are often outright wrong. Thus while ID in the broad sense is irreputable, much of what ID advocates say and call "intelligent design" is wrong (and contrary to "Darwian" evolution).] 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Should it be noted that the ID supporters on the school board have all been voted out of office now? And Should Pat Robertson's public comments regarding that be included as well? I think both are relevant. | |||
| *I think they deserve a line or two a piece, but not more - the article is about the case, after all. ] ] 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **It is important to note that the ID supporters of the School Board have been voted out of office because now that the School Board is no longer ID-friendly there is no possibility of an appeal to a higher court. This is definitely noteworthy. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==What the judge said== | |||
| "The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," Judge Jones wrote. "We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," he said. "The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." | |||
| Jones wrote in his 139-page opinion that "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." and "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." | |||
| Some of the quotes from the judge's decision were not 100% accurate compared to the text of the decision available on the web. I corrected them where necessary. I also noted which page in the decision each quote was from, rather than link to newspaper articles about the decision. Also... I am unconvinced that it's important to quote where the judge notes irony in the case. It's NPOV from the judge himself. I wonder if the quote should even be mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article. ] 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Persuasive weight of District Court decisions == | |||
| Wikicrusader: It is not correct that ''District court opinions ALWAYS have low persuasive authority.. page size is irrelevant'' as you wrote in an edit summary. A district court decision has no ''binding precedential value'' on other district courts, but that is a different concept from its persuasive authority. An opinion such as this one, which was obviously (and expressly) written to be an exhaustive discussion of the ID debate, and is far longer and more detailed than the normal opinion, will have persuasive authority. The judge obviously took care to make detailed factual findings, including reasoned determinations of the credibility of witnesses, so that the decision would be persuasive to the 3rd Circuit on the inevitable appeal. I'm happy to discuss this more with you but the paragraph you added is simply not accurate in the context of this case. -] 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Well when it comes to findings of law, district courts do have low persuasive authority. By persuasive authority I mean the judicial U.S. hierarchy of authority. | |||
| :In essence, the point of my paragraph was to point out to the casual reader that this judicial opinion is simply not legally binding. Even if it were appealed to and affirmed by the 3d circuit, it would still only have mandatory legal effect in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The other circuits would still be free to interpret the teaching of ID as being constitutional. In fact, very often different federal circuits can establish radically different interpretations of the law. | |||
| :I think the person who reads this without a strong legal background might feel "Oh, okay the courts have decided that the teaching is ID is unconstitutional." No, that's not what happened here at all. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, other courts MAY interpret the constitution the same way, but this is definitely not a given. | |||
| :In any case, as they say, I have no dog in this fight. I was just trying to enlighten people a little who might not have a legal education. I have been reverted twice, and really have no great amount of interest in trying to re-include it. But, as a law student I do stand behind my statement's accuracy. ] 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::In reality, the decision will be viewed by judges around the nation in similar cases and it will influence school boards considering adopting similar policies. The 1981 McLean v. Arkansas decision was just a district court decision as well, but it was hugely influential and is widely cited across the nation. ] 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you are confusing what I am saying. My point here is that this decision can be disregarded by other courts. Yes, I am aware that federal district court opinions can have a large impact, e.g. Zippo Mfg. v. Zippo Dot-Com. By the same token, the Restatements or the Model Penal Code have "persuasive impact on courts." However, it usually takes being cited by higher-level courts before they start to carry any appreciable judicial weight. I concede that maybe my phrasing was not perfect but I do stand behind the addition. ] 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| For the benefit of others reading this section, the paragraph in question is the following: | |||
| :''Although U.S. Federal Courts have the foremost authority to interpret U.S. Constitutional law, it should be noted that District-level court opinions typically carry little persuasive legal authority, especially outside of the circuit in which they reside.'' | |||
| If what Wikicrusader meant was that the next time there is a challenge to some school district's attempt to teach ID in a science class, in Colorado or Alabama or wherever, the judge hearing the case will not be bound by the Kitzmiller decision, he's correct. But anyone who thinks that later judges reading the Kitzmiller decision will not find it persuasive is fooling himself. -] 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I apologize. "Mandatory authority" and "persuasive authority" are legal jargon terms. Strictly speaking, as a matter of judicial hierarchy, a district court opinion has little persuasive authority on other courts outside the district. By that I mean, for example, the 9th circuit would find a 3d circuit opinion to have much more persuasive authority than an M.D.P.A. opinion. In any case, I withdraw my contention that my addition be included. ] 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It may be appropriate to briefly mention the likely legal ramifications of this decision, if it can be expressed accurately and concisely. Sourced information would be preferable; ideally, an opinion on the case itself. If not, or if it will take more than a sentence, it's probably best to leave it out. Incidentally, EDM, I thought I read that there is no plan for appeal, especially given that the public voted out all 8 of the 9 board members who had been up for re-election; the new board seems opposed to the mention of ID. — ] ] 02:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That is a good idea, and I'm sure there is no shortage of commentators from whom to draw the information. And you may well be right about the appeal - I hadn't read that the board did not plan to appeal but it would certainly be reasonable to think they wouldn't. -] 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == rm'ed Statement of POV == | |||
| I've removed the following two snippets from the background section: | |||
| *(most biologists claim that evolution is a factual phenomenon explained by the theory) | |||
| *(many biologists claim that the theory of evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life; see ]) | |||
| While these may be accurate (and quite disarming) rebuttals to the Defense's arguments, the "punch, counter punch" style in which they were written is a thinly veiled statement of POV. Unless they were points specifically made by the plaintiffs they do not belong here, and if they were they belong in that context. ] 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Also, and separate from the above, in general should "The school board claims" now be "The school board claimed?" I'm not sure... ] 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologetics == | |||
| From my discussion with Jokestress. | |||
| Here are two separate definitions of Apologetics for you: | |||
| :Mirriam-Webster: | |||
| :1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense | |||
| :Dictionary.com: | |||
| :2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system. | |||
| Yes, the most common kind of apologetics appears to be Christian apologetics, but the Talk.Origins Archive focuses on defending evolutionary dogma (and it is particularly focused on arguing over issues to this end). In this case, "pro-evolution apologetics site" is a more accurate description than "pro-evolution site". And I doubt anyone will get confused and think that labelling Talk.Origins as a pro-evolution apologetics site implies that it is a site supporting evidence of God or Christianity. | |||
| I feel that the more accurate description is warranted. There is nothing in either of these definitions which ''requires'' that apologetics specifically refer to Christianity or any doctrine at all, and it provides ''more information'' in one accurate word. ] 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :"Apologetics" is specifically a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the authority and divine origin of Christianity. (You left this definition out of your quotation from Merriam Webster). It can also be used in a less specific sense, but certainly is confusing and unnecessary in its proposed use here.- ] 06:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Labeling it "pro-evolution apologetics site" spoon feeds the reader. Spoon feeding is applying subsequent non-descript analytical statements to an article that is supposed to comprise of purely descriptive sentences. "pro-evolution site" is sufficiently informative. ] 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is only one definition of the word, and the description, I feel, is relevant and warranted—it is certainly accurate. Regarding my quote from M-W, I gave only the first (primary) definition, which is what applies in this context. "Apologetics" describes the site in question in much greater detail than simply the phrase "pro-evolution", and thus is ''not'', by your definition, "spoon-feeding". I disagree that it is confusing at all. | |||
| ::I will likely revert again, but I am waiting out of courtesy to give you further opportunity to respond. ] 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Misplaced Pages article on ] explains why the term is problematic and loaded (after the first paragraph). ] 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Should then one remove all use of the word "Apologetics" in Misplaced Pages articles because some people feel that it is a "loaded" term? ] 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Depends on the context, but in most cases I would say "yes". - ] 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] Respect consensus. Your viewpoint is not widely shared. ] 06:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thus my decision to wait to revert. I'm well aware of Misplaced Pages policies (of which that is not one, BTW). Thank you for the reminder, however. ] 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If people feel the term "Apologetics" is ''that'' problematic, and refuse to support an accurate, ''positive'', and general usage of the term, please mention so here. If there is clear consensus, then I (and anyone else who desires) will go and edit the term out of any other articles I may find it in, as it must clearly be an unacceptable word for Misplaced Pages usage. ] 06:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :People feel the term is specifically problematic '''''here'''''. Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. - ] 06:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please tell me how the word can ever be used in an NPOV article where it can't be used here. People have shared their opinion that they feel the term fails to work in an NPOV article, but I don't see how it could be applicable to any article where it wouldn't be applicable here. I await further response. ] 07:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::When describing a fight between Christians and lions, you don't describe the '''''Christians''''' as "leonine", even if it were true. You'd find another word. When describing an interaction between the Pope and a Jesuit, you don't describe the Pope as "jesuitical" and the Jesuit as "pontificating". You choose another word where a more specific meaning has a confusing association. That's all that's being objected to here. "Apologetics" has a specifically Christian association, and you are applying it to the side which is ''not'' fighting to get Christian doctrine into the curriculum. Do you ''really'' not get it? - ] 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I ''really'' was unaware that the vast majority of people (evidently) don't know the meaning of the word "apologetics", but you have clearly demonstrated that there are at least a few people here who inherently associate it with only its religious aspect. I find this sad; it otherwise provides a useful description—how else do you describe in one word an organisation that takes ''a priori'' positions on what is true and then systematically defends them (such as Talk.Origins)? Does anyone know another word which means the same thing as "apologetics" but without the Christian connotations? ] 07:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I explained on your talk page, the term has religious and negative connotations that make it inappropriate in this context. You are taking this personally, it seems. It's simply not accurate or neutral in this context. ] 07:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I disagree; it is accurate and neutral, but apparently confusing for some who do not understand its primary definition. If it is not neutral, it shouldn't be used at all. I'm not taking this personally so much as lamenting the loss of a good academic term. ] 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Taken from the[REDACTED] article concerned: | |||
| ::::::::::::Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογια), meaning defense of a position against an attack. When John Henry Newman entitled his spiritual autobiography Apologia Pro Vita Sua in 1864, he was playing upon both connotations. Early uses of the term include Plato's Apology (the defense speech of Socrates from his trial) and some works of early Christian apologists, such as St. Justin Martyr's two Apologies addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. | |||
| :::::::However, it can also be fair to say that apologetics has two connotations. First, those familair with the term in a scholarly context tend to think of it only in religious context. Second, it has as significant negative connotation colloquially. Again from the[REDACTED] article: | |||
| ::::::::::::Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. | |||
| :::::::So then we are presented with a potential for an accidental destruction of neutrality and accuracy based on a flaw with the english language. The question then becomes, is what we have neutral and accurate enough. Pro evolution, while a clumsy term suggesting that evolution is a social doctrine (atleast to me) implies advocacy in favor of evolution. This implies, neccessary, a systematic defense. | |||
| :::::::Long story short, pro-evolution is accurate and sufficient.--] 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You said: ''an organisation that takes ''a priori'' positions on what is true and then systematically defends them (such as Talk.Origins)''. That is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. TalkOrigins argues from the ''scientific'' perspective, which takes nothing as a priori and instead uses evidence to back up claims. The only apologetics here are the religious people; TalkOrigins certainly isn't apologetic. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 15:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First of, a priori is irrleivent to apologetics (the systematic defense of a position, however that position is arrived at), secondly TalkOrigins assumes there is a significant and malicious threat to evolution and the standards of the scientific community. While I discussed above why apologetics is an innappropriate term, TalkOrigins is certainly an advocacy site. | |||
| ::::::As an aside, please don't whitewash "religous people" together wholesale--] 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::From what I've seen, Talk.Origins takes macroevolution ''a priori'' and then uses a combination of logical and scientific argument to back up their positions on evolution. I don't remember any of the apologists there truly questioning (''agent provocateur'' aside) whether or not evolution was scientifically supportable. ] 20:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Even if this is true, it isn't relevant. Neither WP policy nor guideline supports editial comments or spoon feeding readers. Accept both policy and consensus and find another topic. ] 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's relevant to the comments above; I'm not currently arguing that the word "apologetics" should be inserted into the article. While I think that your use of the term "spoon-feeding" in this context is entirely ignorant of the meaning of the word and the context it would be used in here (and thus incorrect), and I am submitting to consensus, with the understanding that evidently most people here do not readily grasp the primary definition of the word "apologetics". You may have noticed I have not edited the article since some sort of consensus had become apparent. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not entirely sure what "editial" means. ] 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Is the question on editial comments an exercise in smart-assery, or an actual question?--] 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your use of the manufactured word "macroevolution" immediately paints you as biased. Scientists make no real distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" in much the same way that physicists make no real distinction between "microvelocity" and "macrovelocity". "Macroevolution" simply happens over longer periods of time. And TalkOrigins certainly doesn't take any facet of evolution as an ''a priori'' truth; there's evidence to back all of it up. Please see the . --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I suspect this will get quickly off topic. Why don't you take the a priori nature or lacktherof discussion to user talk?--] 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Burning of mural == | |||
| The burning of the mural (discussed on the very end of page 107 of the opinion, and the top third of 108) is interesting, but can we add it to the article consistent with NPOV? -- ]] 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Current vs. Previous School Board == | |||
| As the school board now in place is not the school board which instituted the policy, should that be noted in the litigants section (ie, ''Dover School District Board of Directors (2004)'')? I'm not familiar with the details here, if it was the people themselves sued, or the board itself (where technically the newly elected board are defendants as well)? Would be nice to have that answer in the article. | |||
| *As I recall the district itself is being held liable, and the directors involved are representative as officers of a governmental entity, so both. If a suit is filed against the state, the governor is at the top of the defence, whether or not he/she voted against it. I believe then, but I'm not sure, that the former representatives are being held for being involved in the infringment of rights, as is the entity of the DSDBD.--] 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Here's my comment from above: It is important to note that the ID supporters of the School Board have been voted out of office because now that the School Board is no longer ID-friendly there is no possibility of an appeal to a higher court. This is definitely noteworthy. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Convert to timeline format == | |||
| May I humbly suggest that trial proceedings be changed to timeline format so that it looks like, "September 20, 2005: XXXXX testified" rather than "XXXXX testified on September 20, 2005". --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 19:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Infobox == | |||
| The "Holding" section of the infobox states: | |||
| :"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents." | |||
| We should insert ''is not science and'' between "design" and "cannot", thus: | |||
| :Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents." | |||
| This is a major part of the judge's ruling and should be included. ] ] 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *]. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Current Events Tag == | |||
| Should this really still be here? After all, the court case is settled, the ] lost, so this case in and of itself is no longer current. --] 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Agreed. I effected the suggested change. Next time, ]. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Churchgoing Republican" judge? == | |||
| I recall seeing an article where the judge either described himself or was described by the author as a "Churchgoing Republican". Can anyone confirm this, and put it in the article if it's worth including? Cheers! ] ] 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall seeing the same thing, or something similar. I don't think it is worth including in the article though, since all it adds is a "gee whiz" element. -] 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :In essence that information is in ] - Bush appointee, ran for Congress, Lutheran. But yeah, I know I have seen that somewhere too. ] 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::From USAToday "Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago}". They probably got the info from an AP report, but I'm too lazy to look for it. ]] 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find that "gee whiz" elements make articles more fun to read. ] ] 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say its relevance is minimal, unless you want to add a description of the trial, preferably quoted. Such as "Judge Jones, a churchgoing Republican and 2002 GWB appointee, handled the the court with both humor and seriousness" from the XXXX issue of YYY magazine.--] 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kitzmiller conclusions as wikisource== | |||
| The judge's summing up (Kitzmiller_342.pdf) gives a very good overview, and provides information on points that people are raising in talk pages. It is my intention to copy the pdf as text into ], then add headings so that the relevant part can easily be linked from an article or talk page. I understand that U.S. Federal court opinions are public domain. ....] 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) In progress at ], formatting hairy, will split unto topic pages as it's rather huge. ...] 16:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *That is absolutely correct - statutes, court opinions, executive orders, all frolic happily in the public domain. ] ] 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good thing, too, because I just inserted a direct quote from the opinion into the "infobox" at the top of the article. I am wondering though, how exactly does a statute "frolic"? :) ] 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Statutorily. ] ] 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Act-ively. -] 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Pfew! That pun stank. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeals? == | |||
| Can this decision be appealed? Is it likely to be? The article needs information on this. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *It ''could'' be, but it won't, because the school board has changed in composition since the case was filed. Ergo, the party with the ability to appeal has no desire to do so. ] ] 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Explaining mandate in first sentence == | |||
| I revised the first sentence thus: | |||
| The board "required a statement be read to biology classes about ] as an alternative explanation to ]." | |||
| Which was reverted to this: | |||
| The board "tried to mandate teachers to read a statement to the students about ] as an alternative 'explanation' to ]." | |||
| Explanation in quotations is fine, but my reason for using the first version: | |||
| *it was not read to all students, just to biology classes | |||
| *it was not read by teachers (who refused), but by an administrator | |||
| *the second sentemce is kind of clunky | |||
| I feel the first is more accurate, but I have now been reverted twice. Thoughts? ] 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I took a crack at rewording that sentence. Jokestress's bullet points are in the next paragraph and later in the article, so they don't need to be in the opening. -] 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| =="Holding" in Infobox== | |||
| Here is what the judge actually said: | |||
| :"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." | |||
| I think some people have misread the second sentence. When I first saw the Holding in the Infobox, it said: | |||
| :Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and ''cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents.'' (italics added) | |||
| The placement of the word "creationism's" in the Infobox ignored the meaning of judge's use of the word "its." He said ID cannot uncouple ITSELF (that is, ID cannot uncouple ID) from ITS (that is, ID's) creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. So someone, not me, changed it so that after the word "because," it read | |||
| :intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from ''intelligent design's'' religious antecedents. | |||
| That was correct, although less complete than it could have been, because it left out "''creationist, and thus'' religious". But then someone came along and reverted it, so it was wrong again. At that point I put in the judge's exact words: | |||
| :intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." | |||
| For whatever reason, JWSchmidt then came along and changed it back to the wrong version. I have now put the direct quote back in. There is no reason to change it again because I have the judge's exact words in there, and those words make clear that "ITS" means intelligent design, and not creationism. It's all angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway, because the judge is saying that intelligent design = creationism = religious teaching for purposes of public school science education. ] 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I totally agree with you on this issue. Unambiguous is great; using original quotations is greater. If someone tries to change this on you again I will revert for you. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:23, 22 December 2005
penis