300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 239:
Line 239: + + + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 16:04, June 7, 2008
, 16:04, June 7, 2008no edit summary
::::::::::An excellent opinion piece Wandering. I propose that we use 'Rule 52' [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule52.htm] in the article to reference the 'findings of fact' rebuttal. The National Center for Science Education is an excellent source for material that refutes much of what the Discovery Institute and other creationists have to say about ID. Mr. Schlafly even used them as a source for a few of the edits he made. The best resource for this article in rebutting the claims of the DI is the trial transcripts, also posted at the NCSE. Two of the DI's big guns did not fare well during the trial. Judges Jones even quoted and criticized their testimony in his decision.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::An excellent opinion piece Wandering. I propose that we use 'Rule 52' [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule52.htm] in the article to reference the 'findings of fact' rebuttal. The National Center for Science Education is an excellent source for material that refutes much of what the Discovery Institute and other creationists have to say about ID. Mr. Schlafly even used them as a source for a few of the edits he made. The best resource for this article in rebutting the claims of the DI is the trial transcripts, also posted at the NCSE. Two of the DI's big guns did not fare well during the trial. Judges Jones even quoted and criticized their testimony in his decision.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: The link itself has a link to [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html what I was after]. And it seems from my partial reading that their criticism is not as simple as "he copied, and he shouldn't", as implied by the comment in the article. I'll have to check it out more tomorrow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: The link itself has a link to [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html what I was after]. And it seems from my partial reading that their criticism is not as simple as "he copied, and he shouldn't", as implied by the comment in the article. I'll have to check it out more tomorrow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
== Incorrect Statement ==
Mr. Schlafly: The statement you added, ''"(in fact, the statement never was read to students)",'' is not true according to the December 20 ruling. While the teachers refused to read the disclaimer, the transcript of the ruling contains this reference, "''It is important to initially note that as a result of the teachers’ refusal to read the disclaimer, school administrators were forced to make special appearances in the science classrooms to deliver it''." In the interests of accuracy, I propose this sentence be removed or replaced to reflect the fact that the school administrators read the disclaimer to the students. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 12:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)