![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section was so thoroughly contaminated by POV that there was little to save, so I just removed it.
re: consequences. IMO it's probably better to say something along the lines of: The ruling has made it impossible to teach fact claims whose truth depends to any extent on religious assumptions, so that any constitutional attempt to teach theories more consistent with the bible (including theories whose scope only encompasses disproof of evolution or necessity of a creating intelligence) would need to be well supported scientifically and devoid of clear religious motivation. Since adherents claim ID is consistent with these principles, opponents claim that it is a variant of creationism which has arisen expressly for this purpose. -- snaxalotl
In the Kitzmiller ruling [1], this case is referred to as "Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), five years after McLean...." Is the judge confusing the case with Epperson?— Wasabe3543 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Creationists had often sought to advance their agenda through the use of legislation
seems to be a pretty biased statement to me. someone want to reword that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supyonamesjosh ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
I agree that the sentence above sounds biased. Wikipedia should be a neutral place for knowledge. Someone should either remove that sentence or re-word it. Thanks! Sergeidave 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeidave ( talk • contribs)
I suppose it would be superfluous to add that it sounds more like an obvious statement of fact. MrG 4.225.209.191 ( talk) 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is missing something important: Who was Aguillard, and what were the specific origins of the case? Edwards was the governor of Louisiana it seems, but why was he the defendant and not the state? This sort of thing is discussed in the article on EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS and it might also be well discussed here. MrG 4.225.211.197 ( talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section was so thoroughly contaminated by POV that there was little to save, so I just removed it.
re: consequences. IMO it's probably better to say something along the lines of: The ruling has made it impossible to teach fact claims whose truth depends to any extent on religious assumptions, so that any constitutional attempt to teach theories more consistent with the bible (including theories whose scope only encompasses disproof of evolution or necessity of a creating intelligence) would need to be well supported scientifically and devoid of clear religious motivation. Since adherents claim ID is consistent with these principles, opponents claim that it is a variant of creationism which has arisen expressly for this purpose. -- snaxalotl
In the Kitzmiller ruling [1], this case is referred to as "Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), five years after McLean...." Is the judge confusing the case with Epperson?— Wasabe3543 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Creationists had often sought to advance their agenda through the use of legislation
seems to be a pretty biased statement to me. someone want to reword that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supyonamesjosh ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
I agree that the sentence above sounds biased. Wikipedia should be a neutral place for knowledge. Someone should either remove that sentence or re-word it. Thanks! Sergeidave 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeidave ( talk • contribs)
I suppose it would be superfluous to add that it sounds more like an obvious statement of fact. MrG 4.225.209.191 ( talk) 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is missing something important: Who was Aguillard, and what were the specific origins of the case? Edwards was the governor of Louisiana it seems, but why was he the defendant and not the state? This sort of thing is discussed in the article on EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS and it might also be well discussed here. MrG 4.225.211.197 ( talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)