Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Intro comments

this might be useful? --jtl^talk 18:13, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Re: Judge Jones' supposed bias, see this comment on Dembski's blog "Uncommon Descent":

“” This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

The commenter, DaveScot, was positively revelling in the prospect of a politically-motivated result in his direction. And note that DaveScot isn't just some random commenter -- he was at the time Dembski's co-blogger. --jtl^talk 19:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Jtl, would you please work that quote into the article? It deserves to be in the Criticism section, thanks for writing it here!-AmesG 00:33, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

JTL = WIN.-AmesG 07:49, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Need Legal Help

Could someone please help with the Holding part? Someone with legal stuff who's read the case?-AmesG 21:42, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Lies?

The judge accused witnesses of lieing under oath? Did he charge them with perjury? If not, why not? Sounds like another activist judge trying to make laws from the bench (Thou shall not teach anything but evolution). Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:21, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Presumably you are just teasing. In what way are findings that witnesses lied connected with judicial activism? --Horace 22:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

And judges don't charge and prosecute crimes. But yes, the witnesses lied, and it was obvious that they did, and the judge made such a finding of fact. As, you know, judges do. That's an important part of deciding cases, deciding what the facts are. --jtl^talk 22:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Not sure when it comes to perjury (this may be outside of a judge's authority). The whole case reeks of judicial activism. ID is as everybit as pseudoscientific as evolution. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:54, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Read the decision. Want me to send you a PDF?-AmesG 07:08, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

This blog post is interesting, and points to some law review articles which are likely to be interesting as well. --jtl^talk 22:14, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Writing tips

As a professional writer, I offer a few suggestions.

• Leave out as many non-essential adjectives and adverbs as possible. This strengthens the writing and makes a stronger case. Too many adjectives tend to advocate a non-neutral PoV.

• Leave out unnecessary phrases such as "… in nature". If something is "religious in nature", it's simply "religious".

• Be careful about editorializing. Present your set of facts and avoid inserting an opinion or telling the reader what to think. The reader may resent it and you're lost the struggle to win them over.

• Don't guess what someone else is thinking. Professional writers don't know what's in another person's mind unless they tell us.

I've cleaned up some of these issues in the article.

best regards, --UnicornTapestry 09:31, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, hey, thanks, UT. A quick comment - we don't do NPOV. This is not an encyclopedia. And we are happy to editorialize, draw conclusions, etc. ħuman 16:57, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

CP stuff

This is one article I don't mind that CP section on two conditions. 1) If we had a lot more information discussing the case, with that section on deceit moved into the main body of the text. 2) If the CP sections was a sub section under a heading titled creationists' reaction to the case or something like that, along with the discovery institutes response, creationwiki's response etc. I'll add this to my summer homework list if nobody else want to get on with it. - π 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Add that to your list, but I will help you hack away at it, as well. I'm just so ADD I can't promise that, once I start it, I'll finish it, so you may want to assist.Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll moves sections around a bit, but it need serious filling in. This article assumes you have a huge knowledge of the case first. Maybe we should just move the documentary to the start? Isn't it available on Google videos that where I remember watching it? Maybe we can embed the videos in a section called tl;dr. - π 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you can embed the documentary, since it is available on PBS's website without embedding code. But, when I am less tired, I can help try to write an overview of the case and simplify it down so people can have a general summary of it.Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it for you to work on. - π 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll hack away at it, probably, tomorrow when I have tons of time and more energy.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How's that new intro for you?The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more stuff about the politicking, such as Buckingham going to church asking people to "pry" for money and the businessman who bought them that Buckingham claimed he didn't know. - π 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can look for that next, then. But this is a start, at least.Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Silver?

What keeps this from silver? - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"It would be nice to have more stuff about the politicking, such as Buckingham going to church asking people to "pry" for money and the businessman who bought them that Buckingham claimed he didn't know. - User = π 8:56 pm, 20 October 2009, Tuesday (7 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)"

I think Π was right. If someone could add a bit more about Buckingham's wheelings and dealings behind the scenes, this would be more acceptable as a silver. Perhaps I could hack away at it again, I've just been busy, plus my computer is awaiting a hardware repair, so I'm not around as much. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

behind the scenes

http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Dover-Insiders-Small-town-America/dp/1595582088 written by lauri lebo the reporter that was interviewed in judgment day documentary. This book has several interesting stories about the crap that happened behind the scenes. I don't have time to pull my copy out just for a talk page edit but several stories come to mind

1. Bill Buckingham talking to other evangelical christians outside of the school board meeting calling these people atheists if they did not support his proposal for creationism (this is bad as the current view of atheism by conservative christians nowadays)
2. Bill Buckingham going into the court with a cane and trying to play sympathy of the people (i think Lauri lebo compared him to a friendly grandfather.) then changing the next day to an extreme asshole to everyone the next day
3. the creationist board members getting private meetings after the thomas moore law center entered the picture to change what they say to frame everything as intelligent design than creationism

but it may not be good for this site, so what ever you guys thinkNailo1 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very interested in learning more about the aftermath. Did this rip the town apart?--TheLateGatsby (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NOVA's Judgment Day — Intelligent Design On Trial

So I just watched this thing for the first time. Almost two hours long. Now, I had obviously read about this, but I hadn't seen the NOVA special until now. In case anyone was wondering, it's up on YouTube (and has been since 2011). The sound is a bit out of sync, but it's fully watchable regardless — and if you're new to the case, don't miss it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)