John F. Haught testified at the Supreme Court case that was the first direct challenge to the school policy requiring the teaching of what concept?
John F. Haught John F. Haught is a Distinguished Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion. He has authored numerous books and articles, including "Science and Faith: A New Introduction" (2012), "Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and The Drama of Life" ( 2010), "God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens" (2008), "Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature" (2007), "Is Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science" (2006), "Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life" (2004), "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution" (2000, 2nd ed. 2007), "Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation" (1995), "The Promise of Nature: Ecology and Cosmic Purpose" (1993, 2nd ed. 2004), "What is Religion?" (1990), "What is God?" (1986), and "The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose" (1984). In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in 2008 a “Friend of Darwin Award” from the National Center for Science Education. He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA “Intelligent Design Trial”(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of Education).
Pointer v. Texas Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.