Talk:Kenneth R. Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cobb county decision[edit]

Why did someone remove "That decision was reversed on appeal, and the case is still pending in 2006." The article describes an opinion from a lower court, when in fact the decision has been thrown out. It misleads the reader about the outcome of the case. Roger 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duncharris has removed my statement about the current status of the Cobb case a second time, and replaced it with an out-of-date statement that "the decision is currently being appealed" and a link to a similarly out-of-date web site. The decision is not being appealed. The decision has already been appealed, and in May 2006, the decision was "vacated and remanded", in the court's words. The article gives the false impression that the lower court decision has some effect. It doesn't. The case is still pending, and we don't know what the outcome will be. Roger 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoshuaZ has now compounded the error with this comment: "add a correct clarification of the current state of the case. it was remanded to establish certain pertinent facts. does anyone actually both to read the opinions? jeeze".

The sentence now reads, "In 2005, the judge ruled that the stickers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution[2] – the decision is currently being appealed[3] and has most recently been remanded back to the lower court for determination of certain facts." I recommend that the sentence be removed.

The decision is not being appealed. It has already been nullified -- "vacated", in the court's terminology. It is misleading to say it was "remanded back to the lower court for determination of certain facts." These details are not too relevant to Miller's biography anyway. If there is any more detail on the case, it should be to describe what Miller said in his testimony, not what the judge said. Roger 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:JoshuaZ now concedes that the case is no longer under appeal. Since he insists on saying that the remand was to determines certain facts, I added a clause on how at least one of those determinations pertains directly to Miller. After all, Miller is the subject of this article. Roger 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schlafly, it would help if you could point to where it says that it was "vacated" in the decision. JoshuaZ 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how you can verify that the decision was vacated. Click on the "article" above, and then click on Selman v. Cobb County, which has its own WP article. Then click on "11th circuit appeal decision" to download the appellate opinion in pdf format. Open the pdf file in Acrobat, and then search for the term "vacated". You'll find the last sentence, which is "VACATED and REMANDED for further factfindings consistent with this opinion." Your earlier edit was with the comment, ": Here is how you can verify that the decision was vacated. Click on the "article" above, and then click on [Selman v. Cobb County], which has its own WP article. Then click on "11th circuit appeal decision" to download the appellate opinion in pdf format. Open the pdf file in Acrobat, and then search for the term "vacated". You'll find the last sentence, which is "VACATED and REMANDED for further factfindings consistent with this opinion." Your earlier edit had the comment, "does anyone actually both to read the opinions? jeeze", so I don't know how you missed it. Roger 05:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, here is the issue at hand. The word "vacated" as I understand it can have different meanings. Now I'm not a lawyer, but whenever a case is remanded it is vacated as a matter of procedure. There are other ways a case can be vacated (I think) but what really happened here is remanding which happens to include vacating (if someone here is a lawyer who knows more about this could comment it might be helpful). JoshuaZ 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, a case can be remanded without the entire decision being vacated. But regardless, I have proved to you that the court used the "vacated", so you should be satisfied that the term is correct. Roger 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the word "vacated" back in, and I removed the out-of-date link. Roger 07:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look Rog, gee what a surprise. Selman has been settled out of court. Cobb County finally realised it had not a snowball's chance in hell? The King of Spain's beard 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

Is he an atheist? How is he opposed to the idea of creationism, but he's a Roman Catholic? Oreo

He is a Catholic. He is opposed to ID that contradicts evolution. See Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church (Runwiththewind 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

He's Roman Catholic in name only. He has given plenty of money to pro-abortion causes. He's Catholic to the same degree that Stalin was democratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.162.31.241 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware members of a religion weren't allowed to have individual opinions on specific issues. And, how logical to compare him to Stalin in some indirect way. Guess it's slightly better than the usual tripe which involves a Hitler reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.148.129 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Finding Darwin's God. He's not an atheist. He fully explains that. If you read the book and still disagree then that's your loss (and stubborn error)... Kthxbai.--Strabismus (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, he has stated in numerous lectures and presentations that he is a Catholic. Although his beliefs may not necessarily reflect the general consensus of those sharing the Christian faith, there are numerous publications clarifying his stance. Frankly, I find a comparative statement made between him and Stalin to be inflammative, hyperbolic, and generally in bad taste. --Tom (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sc.B[edit]

I would like it to be cited that his undergraduate degree is Sc.B as it is shown in the article. Thanks. Kushal 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miller on Colbert June 16th[edit]

FYI according to his publisher Miller will be on the Colbert Report June 16th. Read more here (you'll have to scroll to find the mention of his new book "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul" ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3) Also Miller wrote this article this week on Expelled, Ben Stein, and intelligent design creationism that might be of interest. Midnight Gardener (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Couldn't anybody find a more flattering picture? 68.118.177.138 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design and Creationism[edit]

"... is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement...." That statement is nonesense. There is a difference between intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design is not included in Creatinists as it is perfectly possible that an intelligent design proponent isn't a proponent of creationism. If in anyway it would be other way round with creationism being a part of a broader family of intelligent design theories.

Also, since Miller takes a controversial stance, where is the criticism against his positions mentioned? --41.132.250.120 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design is nothing more than reinvented creationism, with lots of sources to back this up. Miller is defending the mainstream viewpoint, so "criticism" of his viewpoint would be undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken Miller web.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ken Miller web.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth R. Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kenneth R. Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_R._Miller&oldid=1209069034"