Posted on 11/01/2005 6:42:25 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On Nov. 4, 2003, Republican candidates made a strong showing in York County, Pa. Among the winners were Republican Heather Geesey, who was the top vote-getter among candidates for the nine-member Dover school board, with 2,674 votes. Democrat Aralene Callahan finished out of the running -- dead last, with 1,276 votes.
School board members voted 6-3 in 2004 to include these books as an optional supplement to freshman biology classes.
To hear Mrs. Callahan tell it, the school board thereby surrendered Dover's science curriculum to a Bible-thumping theocracy. If all you know about the case is what you've seen in the New York Times, then you might imagine that freshman science classes in Dover now resemble a Pentecostal revival meeting, complete with snake handling, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
But fear not, ye lovers of science, for Mrs. Callahan quickly rode to the rescue, sparing Dover's 14-year-olds a one-way ticket to the 13th century. The unpopular Democrat, who a year earlier had told the York Daily Record that her post-election plans included spending more time with her family, instead decided she needed to spend more time with the ACLU. And so it was that the board's plan became the object of a federal lawsuit, with Mrs. Callahan among the plaintiffs and Mrs. Geesey among the defendants.
The Dover evolution trial, then, represents the effort of Mrs. Callahan and her allies to win in court what they could not win at the ballot box.
...I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about schools or scientific theories. In fact, I think it fair to say that James Madison and his fellow Founders would have been horrified at the prospect of a federal judge telling folks in Dover what they should or should not teach their 14-year-olds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well, where is the physical evidence that it evolved?
Thanks for pointing that out. It reminds me of Hillary's school-to-work program that rewards and penalizes kids according to their belief system. What a typically elitist attitude: "Your kids are creationists so we will punish them." The same bunch that whines about alleged witch burnings enjoys conducting its own witch hunts.
Sorry, but that's not so. Every major scientific theory we accept today was originally ridiculed by the "scientific" majority. If it is real science, then it will speak for itself. A scientific theory is either convincing, or it isn't. One who simply trusts that most scientists are right likely does not understand science themself and makes the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Don't know. JC as portrayed in the canonical gospels probably wouldn't, though I don't remember any particular strictures against lying under oath.
My scorecard is as follows. Buckingham lied on his deposition about how the money was raised for Of Pandas and People. He said he didn't know anything about it, when in fact he took up a collection at his church. He blamed his 'misspeaking' on addiction to Oxycontin. He was the one who said at a school board meeting “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”, and his wife quoted several verses from Genesis, then asking “How can we allow anything else to be taught in our schools?”.
Bonsell lied in his deposition about not knowing where the money came from; he acknowledged in court that Buckingham had given it to him. He also denied creationism had been discussed at various school board meetings, though there was multiple testimony and written evidence that it had been. According to testimony, Bonsell also said there was a need "to bring prayer and faith back into the school".
Heather Geesey denied under oath the board had used the word creationism, even though she and Buckingham gave statements to the media using the word, and even though newspaper reporters and people taking notes at the meeting both said it was used.
So I ask you two questions: how much credibility does a moral compass have if the people promoting it seem not to use it? And why do the people who allegedly lack a moral compass seem to be the only ones who haven't lied through their teeth?
The IDers in Dover had a postmodernist testify on their side, to say that ID should be taught in schools.
"Sorry, but that's not so. Every major scientific theory we accept today was originally ridiculed by the "scientific" majority. If it is real science, then it will speak for itself. "
That's true. But it is still the scientific community who must come around on correct theories. And having an intelligent advocate to argue the science helps it speak for itself.
That's the only way that ID is going to be science..if enough scientists come to believe there is scientific evidence for it. All that politicians can do is to mandate teaching non-science.
fChristian, is that you?
Sorry, but I don't decide by beliefs by consensus.
Nope. I am me, not 'fchristian', whomever
that may be. :-)
"Sorry, but I don't decide by beliefs by consensus."
I would not expect you to or ask you to.
Scientific consensus is made up of individual scientists each making up their mind. And then are scientific organizations that weigh in ... it's not unlike engineering or economics or any other field of study.
Scientists have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again.
"Scientists have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again."
I hope you weren't expecting me to disagree.
It is just that the method of scientific viewpoints changing comes from irrefutable evidence..that's what ID needs to go from faith to science.
Personally I think God has left his presence as a matter of faith but for it to become a matter of science ID would need a Michelson-Morley type Experiment -something that changes scientific thought thorough undeniable evidence.
Mine, too. Bravo for saying it, tfelice, since it seems that, too often, the misinformed condemn "Christianity" on the basis of their experience with some self-described "Christian," despite the "Christian's" blatant disregard for the word of God.
A claim that has been demonstrated to be utterly without scientific merit. Is anyone in the ID movement still claiming IC for the flagellum given that this canard has been pretty well utterly demolished? Is even Behe sticking with the flagellum anymore, or has he retreated strictly to holding the IC line with circumlocutions about the blood clotting cycle?
I’m not able to invest the time to follow this in detail, but I see his apparent claims the TTSS couldn’t have evolved from subcomponents of different systems is challenged here.
are the rats on the hysteria or what?
You're good. Subtle ridicule, psychologically loaded wording, masked superiority, that's really good.
We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.3
Albert Einstein – 1929
Anyone can challenge anything but you are missing the point. What does the TTSS do?
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.