Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 30, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as high-importance on the assessment scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives

1 (26 September 2005 - 20 August 2006)

Contents

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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. [1] 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)
"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. [2] [3] 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.”[4], [5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)