Posted on 10/03/2005 6:22:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
After a weekend break from a court case involving intelligent design, the Dover school board officials will face business as usual. The board today will hold its first school board meeting since the trial began.
On Sunday, Dover school board member David Napierski said he sympathized with the time fellow members Shelia Harkins and Alan Bonsell have spent on the court case.
“I really haven’t seen it erode them from their duties,” he said. “It definitely has taken a lot of their time . . . I think it is sapping some of the people, too.”
The trial began Sept. 26 in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg. It resumes Wednesday.
Napierski hopes to attend at least one day per week of the trial.
“We’re seeing one side of the whole picture right now,” he said. “I think it’s going to go all the way up to the Supreme Court.”
He said dealing with the court case while running the school district is a “double-edged sword.
“I just hope and pray that our focus will stay on business,” he said.
School district residents might have a difficult time resuming day-to-day life as it was before the trial began.
Lonnie Langioni left his position as a school board member in Dover in 2003. He said the issue has divided the community and he wants folks to again be friends.
“We’re just going to have to let it run its course,” he said about the trial. “I’m just waiting for the day that this is all over and that the people of Dover can go back to talking to each other again.”
He said he follows the case and reads newspapers and articles online.
“It’s crossed all kinds of lines,” he said of the trial. “Dover is a great community. We all need to respect each others’ viewpoints.”
Former Dover school board member Barrie Callahan, a plaintiff in the court case, is ready to spend more time in court this week.
“The case needs to proceed,” she said Saturday. “I know the issue. To see it through the process is truly fascinating.
“You’re seeing the best of the best,” she said about attorneys. “It is an honor to be in their presence.”
She said she’s been following news of the trial posted online.
“It’s not about little tiny Dover,” she said. “This case really, really is important.”
UPDATE
Trial schedule: The trial resumes Wednesday and Thursday in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg and is scheduled to continue Oct. 12, 14, 17 through 21, 24, 27 and Nov. 2 through 4.
At stake: It’s the most significant court challenge to evolution since 1987, and it’s the first time a court has been asked to rule whether intelligent design can be taught in public schools. Experts say the case’s outcome could influence how science is defined and taught in schools across the country. The lead defense lawyer said he wanted to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Coming this week: Among the scheduled witnesses: Dover school district science teacher Bertha Spahr and Jennifer Miller and plaintiffs Cynthia Sneath, Joel Leib and Deb Fenimore.
Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, also is scheduled. Forrest co-authored “Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” subtitled “The Wedge of Intelligent Design.”
Thread evolution? Well, as Spencer suggested, in another context about something else, just because the Rs are turning into Liberals doesn't mean the Ds are turning into Conservatives.
Weeeeeee...
How does that help us identify it?
If they change their mind:
DI did ID.
Wise indeed you are.
Identify what? Science? The Revolution?
LOL!
Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Are they asking the judge to rule on whether or not ID research qualifies as 'science' research. It almost sounds like it. If he rules in their favor, does that mean the court rules that ID is science?
Did I? Did? Did, I did.
Madam, I'm Adam.
"Design is necessary for the function of science."
Not design, but regularity. We can look for the regularity of natural processes, but there is no way to say if they are designed or not without some other information about the designer and the designer's capabilities. The universe needs to be predictable to do science; it doesn't need to be designed for science to function.
John's point, with which I agree, exactly.
"Am I mad, eh?" Giselle sighed, "Am I, Ma?"
Have you tried actually showing your cat how to use the litter box?
Yo, banana boy!
Oh, who was it I saw? Oh, who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.