Difference between revisions of "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Two words: Cdesign proponentsists.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''' was a federal court case in which activist judge [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that [[Intelligent design]] was [[creationism]]. Jones wrote that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision was grounded in [[judicial activism]], and Judge Jones has admitted to this.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref> | '''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''' was a federal court case in which activist judge [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that [[Intelligent design]] was [[creationism]]. Jones wrote that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision was grounded in [[judicial activism]], and Judge Jones has admitted to this.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The term [[cdesign proponentsists]] was spawned into the American culture due to this case. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 23:11, February 4, 2008
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a federal court case in which activist judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent design was creationism. Jones wrote that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". The Discovery Institute found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the ACLU's proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision was grounded in judicial activism, and Judge Jones has admitted to this.[1]
The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case.