Difference between revisions of "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Undo revision 457838 by Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP (User talk:DinsdaleP) - actually, it is supported by Jones himself at the end of the article) |
(i read the source and "the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this") |
||
| 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 | + | '''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 amounts to [[judicial activism]], although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref> |
After this case, use of the term "[[cdesign proponentsists]]" came into vogue among evolutionists critical of Intelligent Design and Creationism. | After this case, use of the term "[[cdesign proponentsists]]" came into vogue among evolutionists critical of Intelligent Design and Creationism. | ||
Revision as of 00:23, May 30, 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 amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.[1]
After this case, use of the term "cdesign proponentsists" came into vogue among evolutionists critical of Intelligent Design and Creationism.