Changes

The current article is unsatisfactory because it is almost completely devoid of references and presents very little in the way of factual information.  I propose the following change.  If there is not any objection, I'll press on.

The current article is unsatisfactory because it is almost completely devoid of references and presents very little in the way of factual information.  I propose the following change.  If there is not any objection, I'll press on.

:Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>

:Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>

:Plaintiffs were a group of parents that brought the case on behave of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004.  They were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP.  Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

:Plaintiffs were a group of parents that brought the case on behave of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004.  They were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP.  Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

:Defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.  About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect.  The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>  <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

:Defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.  About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect.  The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis.  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>  <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

:Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analysis the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause."  The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>

:Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analysis the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause."  The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>

:On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The court summarized in stating, "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."  The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>  

:On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The court summarized in stating, "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."  The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf  </ref>  

:Criticism:

:Criticism:

:The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case.  <ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ </ref>''

:The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case.  <ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ </ref>''

:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

*Reject.  It's still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia, as I already showed on your talk page. Additionally, multiple uses of the National Center for Science Education as a primary source is simply laughable.  You might as well use the KKK as a source for articles about how racism is okay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

*Reject.  It's still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia, as I already showed on your talk page. Additionally, multiple uses of the National Center for Science Education as a primary source is simply laughable.  You might as well use the KKK as a source for articles about how racism is okay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Mr. Jinxmchue: Based on my past experience with your editing and opinions, I will simply discount your initial observation and not take your rejection as the final word.  Another word on your skills as an editor, you may take this as an observation.  Every paragraph has a reference.  The primary references for the first six paragraphs are to the PDF transcript of the official ruling of Judge Jones which is posted at the NCSE.  If fact, the NSCE has many documents from the trial, all posted unedited and without editorial comment.  So you see, the only primary resource I used from the NCSE concerned their research into creationism and this was the You Tube interview that was posted at the end of the article.  Even a cursory reading of the article and references will show just about the entire article is written using the December 20, 2005 ruling.  All other references were added to list the law firms involved with the trial.  Using the KKK as a means to criticize my references is juvenile, but if you insist on using such ad hominem comments, I can't stop you.  

:Mr. Jinxmchue: Based on my past experience with your editing and opinions, I will simply discount your initial observation and not take your rejection as the final word.  Another word on your skills as an editor, you may take this as an observation.  Every paragraph has a reference.  The primary references for the first six paragraphs are to the PDF transcript of the official ruling of Judge Jones which is posted at the NCSE.  If fact, the NSCE has many documents from the trial, all posted unedited and without editorial comment.  So you see, the only primary resource I used from the NCSE concerned their research into creationism and this was the You Tube interview that was posted at the end of the article.  Even a cursory reading of the article and references will show just about the entire article is written using the December 20, 2005 ruling.  All other references were added to list the law firms involved with the trial.  Using the KKK as a means to criticize my references is juvenile, but if you insist on using such ad hominem comments, I can't stop you.  

:::Philip: Thanks for your comment.  I used the NCSE link because they also have what looks like every transcript of the proceedings available on-line.  Even if you don't like their politics or science, they are a handy reference for all the Kitzmiller documents.  That being said, I don't mind if the other reference is used.  In defense of Judge Jones, his denial of his alleged activism was a part of his verdict which came before the Discovery Institutes charge of activism; therefore he didn't address any specific claim leveled against him.  I feel that any further discussion of any alleged activism on his part should be reserved for another article that is linked to this one. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Philip: Thanks for your comment.  I used the NCSE link because they also have what looks like every transcript of the proceedings available on-line.  Even if you don't like their politics or science, they are a handy reference for all the Kitzmiller documents.  That being said, I don't mind if the other reference is used.  In defense of Judge Jones, his denial of his alleged activism was a part of his verdict which came before the Discovery Institutes charge of activism; therefore he didn't address any specific claim leveled against him.  I feel that any further discussion of any alleged activism on his part should be reserved for another article that is linked to this one. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Edit==

==Edit==

Philip:  The quote box for the disclaimer looks good, thanks. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip:  The quote box for the disclaimer looks good, thanks. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

==Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit==

==Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit==

:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx  

:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx  

:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism.  No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism.  No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it.  The fee award was $2 million.  I'd guess you picked up the $1 million  from Wikipedia's biased entry.  It's baseless.  You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom.  Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it.  The fee award was $2 million.  I'd guess you picked up the $1 million  from Wikipedia's biased entry.  It's baseless.  You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom.  Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision.  I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact.  I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article.  I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139]  Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/]  What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references.  And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support.  Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial.  --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision.  I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact.  I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article.  I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139]  Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/]  What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references.  And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support.  Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial.  --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)