Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type. Add: date, isbn, pmid, doi, authors 1-1. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox2 | #UCB_webform_linked 1144/2778 |
m fixed lint errors – missing end tag |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Relationship between
{{Intelligent Design}}
The relationship between '''intelligent design and science''' has been a contentious one. [[Intelligent design]] (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to [[evolution]]. The [[Discovery Institute]], a politically conservative [[think tank]] and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community
=="Teach the Controversy"==
Line 18:
|title=NABT's Statement on Teaching Evolution
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060927160040/http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
|archivedate=2006-09-27}}</ref><ref>
}}</ref><ref>▼
{{cite web
|url = http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
Line 30 ⟶ 29:
|archivedate = September 27, 2007
}} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom]]'s [[Royal Society]].</ref><ref>From the world's largest general scientific society:
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
Line 39 ⟶ 38:
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|archivedate=February 21, 2006
}}
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
Line 47 ⟶ 46:
|date=February 19, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|archive-date=2013-10-19
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171834/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last = Dixon | first = Thomas | title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676 | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2008 | ___location = Oxford | page = [https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676/page/n118 102] | isbn = 978-0-19-929551-7}}</ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a [[stalking horse]] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the [[Materialism|materialist]] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref>{{cite news |date=November 27, 2005▼
|url-status=dead
▲ }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last = Dixon | first = Thomas | title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676 | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2008 | ___location = Oxford | page = [https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676/page/n118 102] | isbn = 978-0-19-929551-7}}</ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a [[stalking horse]] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the [[Materialism|materialist]] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref>{{cite news |date=November 27, 2005
|first=Mark
|last=Coultan
Line 54 ⟶ 55:
|work=[[Sydney Morning Herald]]
|accessdate=2007-07-29
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|title=Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse
Line 61:
|publisher=Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
|accessdate=2011-10-28
|archive-date=2017-09-01
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901114207/https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
Line 71 ⟶ 74:
|title=''Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?''
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|
}}
▲}} ''"...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion.... This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact".'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_wedge.htm The Wedge]
</ref> However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005"/> The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' trial in late 2005 and after President [[George W. Bush]] expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush's statement and the pending federal trial, ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom.<ref name="TIME">
*{{cite web
Line 87 ⟶ 83:
|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]
|date=August 11, 2005
|
}}
*{{cite journal
Line 211 ⟶ 207:
|accessdate=2007-07-27
|doi=10.5840/philo20003213
|url-access=subscription
}}</ref> by eliminating "[[Naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]" from science<ref>{{cite book
|last=Johnson
Line 240 ⟶ 237:
|publisher=University of Texas, Austin
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080114094157/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html
|archivedate=2008-01-14}}</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n">{{cite web
|first=Teresa
|last=Watanabe
Line 250 ⟶ 246:
|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]
|quote=<nowiki>[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]:</nowiki> We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise.... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
|archive-date=2007-09-30
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015101/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of [[irreducible complexity]] and [[specified complexity]] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DI-topquestions>
{{cite web
Line 281 ⟶ 280:
|quote=<nowiki>[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]:</nowiki> Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070608233455/http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html
|archivedate=2007-06-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf
|title=Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
Line 293 ⟶ 291:
|work=Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? (Symposium)
|publisher=The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship
|archive-date=2011-03-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110311170712/http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
Line 355 ⟶ 356:
|archive-date=2008-12-17
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|title=What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design <nowiki>[ID]</nowiki> as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?
Line 364:
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|publisher=Creighton University
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004102/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of [[Occam's razor|parsimony]]. From a strictly [[empiricism|empirical]] standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. <!--paraphrasing http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html: "intelligent design advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think is the designer, but God—defined in a very nebulous way—generally out-polls ''extraterrestrials'' as the leading candidate".-->
Line 400 ⟶ 403:
|archive-date=2007-07-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem
Line 410 ⟶ 412:
|publisher=Creighton University
|format=Reprint
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> others, such as [[Christoph Schönborn]], [[Archbishop of Vienna]], have shown support for it.<ref name="Matt Young, Taner Edis">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PR7 |first1=Matt|last1=Young|first2=Taner|last2=Edis|authorlink2=Taner Edis |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers, The State University |quote=An influential Roman Catholic cardinal, Cristoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna, appeared to retreat from John Paul II's support for evolution and wrote in ''The New York Times'' that descent with modification is a fact, but evolution in the sense of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is false. Many of Schonborn's complaints about Darwinian evolution echoed pronouncements originating from the Discovery Institute, the right-wing American think tank that plays a central role in the ID movement (and whose public relations firm submitted Schonborn's article to the Times). |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-8135-3872-3 |date = 2006 |orig-year=2003}}</ref><ref name="Ronald L. Numbers">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA395 |first=Ronald L. |last=Numbers |title=The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design |publisher=[[Random House]] |quote=Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed piece for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense-an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation against Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation." Humans, he insisted, are "not the products of chance and error," and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design." |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-674-02339-0 |year = 2006}}</ref><ref name="Parliamentary Assembly">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=imUrkSP_5sUC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA66 |title=Parliamentary Assembly, Working Papers: 2007 Ordinary Session |publisher=Council of Europe Publishing |quote=Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an article in ''The New York Times'' stating that the declarations made by Pope John Paul II could not be interpreted as recognising evolution. At the same time, he repeated arguments put forward by the supporters of the intelligent design ideas. |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-92-871-6368-4 |date = 2008-04-25}}</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 [[clergy]] who signed the [[Clergy Letter Project]]. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer [[George Coyne]] and the biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller|Ken Miller]], have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/is-idm-christian
Line 477 ⟶ 482:
==Defining science==
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science |quote= knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method '''. . .''' such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena |publisher=Merriam-Webster |title=Online dictionary |accessdate=2009-05-22}}</ref>
The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the [[scientific method|methods of science]]."<ref>
Line 494 ⟶ 499:
</ref>
The U.S. [[National Science Teachers Association]] and the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] have termed it [[pseudoscience]].<ref group="n">National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators {{cite press release
|quote=We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science....It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom.
|url=http://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
Line 502 ⟶ 505:
|publisher=National Science Teachers Association
|date=August 3, 2005
|access-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908170615/https://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref name=harvard>
{{cite journal
Line 544 ⟶ 551:
</ref>
and some have called it [[junk science]].<ref group="n">{{cite journal
|url= |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
|journal=Journal of Clinical Investigation
Line 575 ⟶ 580:
*{{cite magazine
|quote=Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
|first=H. Allen
|last=Orr |magazine=The New Yorker
|date=May 2005
Line 585 ⟶ 591:
|url=http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|title=Junk science
|first=Mark
|last=Bergin |work=[[World (magazine)|World]]
|volume=21
|issue=8
|date=February 25, 2006
|access-date=February 3, 2012
|archive-date=January 7, 2012
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107132058/http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|url-status=dead
▲}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC&q=intelligent+design+junk-science&pg=PA210
Line 628 ⟶ 638:
}} Discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg64" group="n">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 674 ⟶ 684:
}}</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref group="n">The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 680 ⟶ 690:
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 22 of 139|Ruling, p. 22]] and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 77 of 139|p. 77]].</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref group="n">That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 723 ⟶ 733:
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruled that]] "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
At the Kitzmiller trial, philosopher [[Robert T. Pennock]] described a common approach to distinguishing science from non-science as examining a theory's compliance with [[methodological naturalism]], the basic method in science of seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Pennock | first1 = Robert T | year = 2007 | title = Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited | journal = Synthese | volume = 178 | issue = 2| pages = 177–206 | doi=10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3| s2cid = 31006688 }}</ref> Intelligent design proponents criticize this method and argue that science, if its goal is to discover truth, must be able to accept evidentially supported, supernatural explanations.<ref name="discovery">{{cite web
|first1=Stephen C.
|last1=Meyer
|date=May 1, 1996
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
Line 733 ⟶ 743:
}}
*{{cite web
|first=Phillip E.
|last=Johnson |date=August 31, 1996
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
Line 742 ⟶ 753:
}}
*{{cite web
|first=Stephen C.
|last=Meyer |date=December 1, 2002
|publisher=Ignatius Press
Line 768 ⟶ 780:
|date=February 13, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-20
|archive-date=2016-03-04
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120124/http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=389188
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Additionally, philosopher of science [[Larry Laudan]] and [[cosmologist]] [[Sean M. Carroll|Sean Carroll]] argue against any ''a priori'' criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.<ref>{{Cite book |last= Laudan |first= Larry |authorlink= Larry Laudan |editor1-last= Cohen |editor1-first= R.S. |editor2-last= Laudan |editor2-first= L. |title= Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum |series= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |volume= 76 |year=1983 | publisher=D. Reidel |___location=Dordrecht |isbn=90-277-1533-5 |pages=111–127 |chapter=The Demise of the Demarcation Problem |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AEvprSJzv2MC&q=Demise}}</ref><ref>Carroll, Sean. "What Questions Can Science Answer?". 2009. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191111141759/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer/ |date=2019-11-11 }}</ref> Laudan, as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest, state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems.<ref name="laudan">{{cite journal | last1 = Laudan | first1 = Larry | year = 1990 | title = Normative Naturalism | journal = Philosophy of Science | volume = 57 | issue = 1| pages = 44–59 | jstor=187620 | doi=10.1086/289530| s2cid = 224840606 }}</ref><ref name="forrest">Forrest, Barbara. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection." ''Philo'', Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7–29 http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328004533/http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf |date=2012-03-28 }}</ref> Methodological naturalism is therefore an ''a posteriori'' criterion due to its ability to yield consistent results.<ref name="laudan"/><ref name="forrest"/>
==Peer review==
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 804 ⟶ 817:
}}</ref>
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html |title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |
{{cite journal
|author=Meyer, S.C.
Line 879 ⟶ 892:
|pmid=16131652
|pmc=2253472
}}</ref> In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".<ref>''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', October 19, 2005, AM session [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html Kitzmiller Testimony, Behe]</ref> As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".<ref name="kitzruling_pg87" />
The Discovery Institute has published lists of articles and books which they say support intelligent design and have been peer-reviewed, including the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks [[impartiality]] and [[rigour|rigor]],<ref group="n">{{cite journal
Line 951 ⟶ 964:
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref group="n">"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies".—{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
| |||