Select Page

Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Former featured article candidateKitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2011, and December 20, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Title of book, second paragraph

In the second paragraph, is the title of the book relevant to this article. It looks (to the untrained eye: me) like promotion. I mean "Of Pandas and People" in this sentence: "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of a textbook advocating intelligent design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Log in to create account (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the central role Of Pandas and People played in the trial, I would say "yes, the title is important". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Is there a way to make clear in that paragraph what the relevance of the book is? For example changing the sentence to something like "publisher of the intelligent design advocating textbook Dover board had recommended in a press release". In other words, clarify why Foundation for Thought and Ethics tried to join and leave the title in the article. Log in to create account (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It actually turned up in at least three major points of the case: it is mentioned in the board's statement (that they wanted teachers to read) that precipitated the case; the purchase of the books were at the heart of the judge's accusing two board members of perjury, and drafts of the book provided indelible evidence of the link between creation science and ID (include the infamous 'cdesign proponentsists' missing link). Too much to mention it all in the lead -- but probably meaning that it does deserve a paragraph of its own in the body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance of your point to my suggestion immediately above. Log in to create account (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you're pointing out the book is so important that it needs to be mentioned in the lead, in which case how about changing the sentence in the lead to "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of Pandas and People; a textbook advocating intelligent design that the board recommended, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons" instead. My point is that it would be good to have something explaining _why_ the Foundation and book are relevant, rather than just explaining _that_ they are relevant. Log in to create account (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already put a brief mention of the fact that the book played a prominent part in the trial into the lead. But details really belong in the article body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it a lead should summarize a piece of writing, and as it stands the lead makes it seem like an arbitrary Foundation that wrote an arbitrary book tried to join the party late, but that they were both importantly relevant to the trial. Someone reading it (e.g. me) would immediately wonder what this Foundation and book have to do with the whole thing, and they should be able to know that from the lead (because the lead summarizes the article). You've added more information _that_ the Foundation and book are relevant without any information on _why_ they're relevant. Your addition uses 53 words, the initial sentence used 35 words, and my suggestion uses 33 words. In that context, my suggestion seems quite good, given that it uses two words less than the original and 22 less words than your change but still manages to explain what this Foundation and book have to do with this trial (via the words "that the board recommended") rather than just states that they are relevant, somehow. How about moving "(a book whose prominence within the trial was such that it is sometimes referred to as the 'Dover Panda Trial')" into the article and adjusting the original sentence so that it explains that the Foundation and book are related to the trial because the book was recommended by the board, or was suggested in the press release, or anything at all that explains what the Foundation and book have to do with the trial, in the lead Log in to create account (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective please

In the article and the discussion here the false impression that is left is that the debate is over teaching a course on Intelligent Design instead of teaching evolution, or at the least presenting a promotional lecture on I.D as a preface to a biology course. It is more compelling to actually stick with the facts in Dover than to make stuff up. In this case we are talking about 2 sentences in an otherwise unremarkable matter-of-fact introductory statement. Those two sentence admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a "book in the libarary" that students can go read if they want to see an alternative idea to evolution. A careful read of the details in the Wike article brings this out - but all the verbage wrapped around it speaks to a fictional scenario were I.D was actually a course to be taught.

At no point does "Admitting in two short sentences to the fact that something exists" constitute teaching an entire course, nor can it be spun as a mind-bending promotional lecture of whatever is said to "exist" even if that alternative includes a "book in the library" that students can go read if they have an interest.

The spin doctoring of the facts has gotten way out of hand thanks primariyt to Judge Jones, the media and the ACLU.

BobRyan777 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective is unsupported by the evidence. The board specifically changed its policy to present ID as an alternative to schoolchildren, not to just "admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a 'book in the libarary'." Of course, ID doesn't exist as a scientific theory, but as amply shown it does exist as religious apologetics unsuitable for the science classroom. Hence the court case. . dave souza, talk 23:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminating key objective facts from the opening paragraph is only misleaing the reader into imagining that the issue is over an imagine course on I.D. or even an imagined lecture promoting I.D. There is no vote by the school board mandating any changes at all other than the 2 sentences speaking to the existence of I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction. The text of the article itself points this out to the reader using critical thinking. The need to eliminate that key detail from the opening paragraph seems questionalbe at best. If the text of the article had referenced voted changes to curriculum other than the 2 sentence "a book exists" your argument would have substantive support. Your comment above actually appears to argue that the 2 sentence statement was not the problem but rather some other more expansive board vote was the problem. The article does not support your claim since the only board vote - the only board action cited is the 9 sentence introduction and only the I.D portion at that (i.e. two sentences). Some may have strong feelings about it being stated to exist only as something "unsuitable for the science classroom" - but we are not talking about feelings we are talking about objective historic fact. It is supposed that your own statement above that admits to the existence of I.D. while properly disparaging it would have been acceptable. In essence you argue that it was failure to disparage the teaching of I.D. that made it so wrong to admit to its existence. However the court ruling does not make the argument that it is ok to admit to the existence of I.D. so long as it is properly disparaged. As it stands in "fact of history" it is only the two sentences admitting to the existence of a book in the library on I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction published November 19, 2004, that is being condemned. The ruling is over the freedom (or not) to admit to the existence of I.D. in a matter-of-fact fashion. The court argued that a two sentence statement admitting to the existence of I.D. violates the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The more we stick with facts and not feelings the more we allow the reader to use their own judgment. (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your comments several times. It makes no sense. ID is not scientific and is not supported by science. It is a religious dogma best left in church not schools. That is the essence of the court case. If you have another point, please bring citations that can verify your thoughts. And write so that your points are understandable, because right now, it reads like random words. From what I can tell, you're trying to reinvent the court case. That's not supported by the facts. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marlin -- Your feeling that ID is not scientific is not being challenged in any of the text I have written. Nor am I in any way deleting any text saying that the court finds I.D. to be religion and not science. I am not arguing for evolution or for I.D. I am simply asking for the minimum level of objectivity that does not seek to mislead the reader by deleting facts from the opening paragraph that are already present in the article itself. I think this is the easy part. Section 3.4 makes it very clear that the court was opposed to I.D. And the Wiki Article shows that I.D is only mentioned in two sentences in that 1 minute introduction to the Biology class. Without those two sentences there is no I.D. in the introduction. Someone has already reverted the text 3 times which tells me that feelings are running pretty high on this one - however I am hoping that an objective approach to the facts will allow the facts already present in the article to be summarized in the opening paragraph. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ BobRyan, you appear to have misunderstood the court ruling: I've improved references to the relevant parts which give a clear statement of the board's decisions and activities. While no doubt you have strong feelings about the issues, all statements have to be verified from reliable sources, your inaccurate feelings aren't acceptable as a basis for statements in the article. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave -- All the facts I listed in my text are already present in the article itself. My intent was not to add additional facts - merely to summarize the already existing facts in the article so that the casual reader is not mislead. Apparently there are some strong feelings present on this topic such that this objective approach is something of a new idea. I am more than happy to source reference the same quotes the same text that already exists in the wiki article but that seem a bit redundant given that this is just a summation of what the article arleady states. Section 3.4 makes it clear that the only complaint of the court was the board action related to I.D. and the fact that the court does not view I.D. as valid science. The only action that the court ruled for or against was in regard to the topic of I.D. The school board only took action on the topic of I.D. in the two sentences already present in the Wiki text of the article. Again this is just a statement of glaringly obvious facts already present in the text of the article. No rocket science here. No non-I.D. related school board voted actions are even being considered or banned by the court ruling as is already clear in the Wiki article itself. This is not the hard part. In my opinion some objectivity here would benefit the reader. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the facts you're going on about are covered in the lead, unfortunately you seem to have failed to grasp several aspects of the case. Before discussing and agreeing the statement, the board changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design was to be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. In addition to the specific mention of ID, the board's formulation singled out evolution theory for attack, using the old creationist canard "it's only a theory" as part of the teach the controversy ID tactic which was specifically discussed in the ruling. There is of course much more, as shown in the article and in the details of the case. The ruling is explicit about the unconstitutional aspects of the board's actions, and you'd do well to study it more closely. . dave souza, talk 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave -- You are correct to agree that the facts I had placed in the opening paragraph (and that you are so focused on hiding from the reader for reasons still innexplicable) are in fact already scattered here and there in the article itself.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The two sentences in the November 2005, 9 sentence introduction (the 1 minute intro) is the point where the voted October school board policy was in fact carried out.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The biology course itself was unchanged. No requirement at all in the voted action or in the announced change in November 2005 to have the book "Of Pandas and People" given as a text in the class that remained wholy devoted to evolution, nor even to be used as a reference book on evolution.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. The one million dollar award was given for the 1 minute introduction that went so far as to include two sentences using language of the form "there exists a book in the library" language. The court ruling found that those two sentences were religiously motivated and thus that the Lemon test applied.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. The fact that the emotions and feelings you have expressed here would characterize "There is a book in the library" as attack langauge - speaks for itself. The fact that you imagine that we are not allowed to admit to science theory any longer else we are "attacking" evolution is also an extreme in emotional reaction that is out of place in a matter-of-fact presentation. I believe that facts-over-feelings will eventually prevail to move this article out of the B-category.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.In your response above you suggest that there is a board vote on record to make the book "Of Pandas and People" a required text for the 9th grade biology class in 2005. As already stated I prefer the facts-over-feelings approach and would be very happy to have that documented fact listed in the opening paragraph --- but sadly that is not documented historic fact, it is again your appeal to feelings about the future not voted actions on record in the past. I prefer historic fact. Board actions taken and Court findings documented. BobRyan777 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, try to be more succinct in your writing. No one has time to read run on sentences. See WP:TLDR. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marlin, your point that nobody has time to read the one paragraph above pointing to key flaws in Dave's edit warring delete of key facts from the opening paragraph (key facts already present in the article itself, and admitted to by Dave in this talk thread), points to the objective unbaised reader's "need" for having that opening pargraph summarize those facts rather than demanding that readers sift through the article looking for a clear and concise summary. I am not sure if you realized that when you posted that comment. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced comments below moved from article to talk page. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was well done. That reference points to the two sentences (in the school board's introduction to biology statement) that mention the actual subject of Intelligent Design, as being the point at issue. BobRyan777 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BobRyan777, do you have a specific suggestion for improving this article? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that key facts that already admitted to in the article itself (and even admitted to by Dave here on the talk page in defense of his edit warring ) not be deleted from the summary of the article, since they provide key perspective. I realize that for those who may be emotionally tied to a certain slant on this article, this may seem like a novel or new idea - but I suggest that the unbiased objective reader will appreciate such an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening for the article. At the moment we simply wait while the group considers the need to be objective. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ BobRyan777, your fringe viewpoint that it was "only a little statement" reminds me of the girl who was "only a little bit pregnant". The statement in the lead accurately and properly summarises the cited sources, and your idea of "an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening" plainly gives undue weight to the minority pseudoscientific claims of ID proponentsists. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, you are factually incorrect in claiming that the two ID lines were the only problem with the disclaimer: read pages 39-46 of the decision. The lines discrediting evolution were also problematic. The unequal treatment (hyperskepticality of evolution, no skepticality at all of ID) was yet another problem. The existence of the disclaimer at all (for evolution but for no other school topics) was another problem. In Judge Jones' exact words:

Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with “Darwin’s view” and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or “view” of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student’s eyes, is contrasted with an alternative “explanation,” as opposed to a “theory,” that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative “explanation” thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary “theory.”

Howard Landman (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location and date at start of introduction.

Hi guys,

Somewhere along the line the location and date of the trial was omitted at the start of the article. In encyclopedias, it is standard practice to get the "who", "what", "when" and "where" out of the way before delving into deeper detail. I fixed this by moving the information from further down, up to the first paragraph.

InternetMeme (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you appreciate, your change was reverted as it had the unintended effect of changing the meaning a bit. Having looked at the lead, the opening sentence was rather long, and the fact that this was the first courtroom challenge to ID wasn't sourced. I've added a source and split the sentence so that "testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design" is separated from the (named) school board decision that began the case. The trial dates are already prominent in the infobox immediately to the right of the lead paragraph, so don't think we need to put them higher in the lead itself. Thanks for being WP:BOLD, . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contrived dualism

The immediately surrounding “quotes” jump from footnote 7 on page 46 to page 64 to page 86, and the entire section is obviously just a bunch of editorial selections from the primary source. The footnote I would like to add is from the exact same source and explains the obscure “contrived dualism” reference:

McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1266.6: “The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence[.]’ 529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)”

Needless to say, there's no article called contrived dualism and you've done nothing to improve this article by removing a good link to irreducible complexity due to my insistence that the misleading link to dualism be removed. Perhaps you'd prefer to incorporate this explanation from page 42, or similarly illuminating material, in some way other than a footnote? If not, I'll revert again tomorrow. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern, really, is that direct quotes actually be direct quotes, not edited versions, especially if we don't in some way indicate that we are the ones making edits. I'm not quite sure how the wikilink to dualism is misleading, but if that is the crux of your issue with that passage, perhaps you could raise that more explicitly here. If you feel that the whole quote is incomplete without the context, there's really two options that I would be satisfied with; one would be to put the material in the footnote in a separate quote, or the other would be to remove the quote entirely. I do think that passage reflects the judge's summary of his view on one of the key issues in this case, of whether ID is science or not, but it sounds like your main concern is really that the judge's phrase "contrived dualism" is so unclear as to be meaningless/misleading. I'm still struggling to understand the issue that you are attempting to address with these edits. Mine is really just that cited quotations be accurately quoted. Edhubbard (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't assume the bracketed footnote has been added as a verbatim reproduction of a footnote originally appearing at that location in the passage from page 64. However, I suggest that removing the pipe should help dispel any ambiguity in that regard. I imagine a footnote is probably the best way to clarify this obscure reference while not detracting from the key issues and without compromising the fidelity of the passage.
If you think about it, linking to dualism would be the least likely avenue one might hope to yield a clue as to what particular non-dualism, which masquerading as dualism, is preposterous somehow.—Machine Elf 1735 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, nice. On behalf of dualism, non-dualism and dark matter/energy with a smirk, I'd have gone with “contrived dichotomy”. Only something of the fragrance is lost in translation. A link to false dilemma seems like a hard sell though, unless, the term is actually used. In deference to which, I'd put it in the “nice to have” column for now, yah?
Thing is, how scientific it ain't, as an objective child might say, doesn't matter. What's illegal is promoting religion in public school, scientific or no. Now, as any deluded little hooligan will tell ya, that's easily the more plausible of ID's claims, because century after century of torrid details of science's jilted deities, including the ménage à trois at university, are right there in the history books, (not the phony ones). Right, so, the kid wearing a robe actually said their other claim, you know, the one about Genesis, really is about Genesis and he'll grant that's plausible, or not, or drinks are on him, or oh y'ah, whatever those science guys said and stuff is like, so totally true.
If consensus on a format (not too prolix) just ain't on the dance card, I agree, removal is an acceptable Plan B, but I doubt it would come to that. I've more or less read “key issue” as “keenly notable”.—Machine Elf 1735 16:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kitzmiller decision itself uses the phrase "false dichotomy" ("ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock))." p71) -- which is clearly talking about the same thing as false dilemma. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A piped link to false dichotomy is fully in order, as that article starts with "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." That includes false dichotomy as an alternative name, and the example given covers the ID argument well: "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle." That article needs improvement including more sources, but it's obviously appropriate. . dave souza, talk 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"botany teachers" ?

This has to be wrong. I don't think there were ANY "botany teachers" at DAHS, and I've never known any US high school that had even one. I believe that the people who were forced to view the DVD were a subset of the science teachers, including the biology teachers.

The exact teachers who watched the video included:

  • Jennifer Miller (senior biology teacher, anatomy & physiology teacher); reference her cross examination (trial transcript day 7 PM page 25 lines 14-23)
  • Bryan Rehm (physics teacher); reference his testimony (trial transcript day 2 PM page 47 line 17 to page 48 line 9)
  • Bertha Spahr (science department chair, chemistry teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
  • Robert Eshbach (biology, environmental science, and ecology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
  • Leslie Prall (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
  • Robert Linker (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above

and possibly a few others.

I'm going to change it to "science teachers" unless anyone has a better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Landman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "science teachers". The target of the school policy/curriculum statement was biology, but that's not the topic. It makes sense for the chair to be involved in what will impact her teachers, but she is not bio. High schools often have combined "science" departments with overlapping specialties. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the sentence carefully, I ended up going with "biology teachers". The reason is that, while we know from the testimony who actually watched the video, we don't know precisely who was ASKED to watch the video. I got the feeling from the testimony that it MIGHT have been just the biology teachers, with Rehm and Spahr coming along for moral support and/or outside expertise. That being said, I don't have any major objections to "science teachers" either.

In terms of "overlapping specialties", I think I remember seeing that Eshbach taught Chemistry one year, even though he's nominally just a biology teacher.Howard Landman (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]