Posted on 11/08/2005 11:05:11 PM PST by jennyp
Dover CARES swept the race for school board Tuesday defeating board members who supported the curriculum change being challenged in federal court.
After months of fierce campaigning that included some mudslinging from both sides, new members of the board are Bernadette Reinking, Rob McIlvaine, Bryan Rehm, Terry Emig, Patricia Dapp, Judy McIlvaine, Larry Gurreri and Phil Herman.
The challengers defeated James Cashman, Alan Bonsell, Sherrie Leber, Ed Rowand, Eric Riddle, Ron Short, Sheila Harkins and Dave Napierskie. Results are not official until certified by the county.
“We’re still in shock because we were expecting to have some wins,” said Dapp, who won a two-year term. “We weren’t expecting to have all eight.”
Dapp said “we recognized very quickly that we were a very cohesive, well-working team. I think that is one of our many strengths of what we will bring to the board.”
Candidates weigh in
Board members Bonsell and Harkins, who had voted in favor of adding intelligent design into the ninth grade science curriculum, received the least amount of votes, with 2,469 and 2,466, respectively. Bonsell and Harkins did not return phone calls about the results Tuesday.
Reinking, who was running for a four-year term, received the most overall votes with 2,754.
“It’s a nice thing,” she said. “I’m very flattered and very humble about the whole thing.”
During the campaign, the eight Dover CARES candidates had questioned the incumbents’ truthfulness and fiscal responsibility, while the eight incumbents touted their achievements in keeping taxes in line and the ability to provide quality education.
Cashman, who was running for a four-year term, had said during the day Tuesday that “I expect to win, but it’s not a big celebratory thing.”
About the loss, Cashman said, “We put our effort into this and we tried to manage the school district as conservatively as we could. I have nothing to be ashamed about.”
Rehm said he believed the voters responded because of the challengers’ combined efforts. It wasn’t one thing. They went door-to-door, held public meetings and didn’t exclude anyone, said Rehm, who won a four-year seat.
A major topic in this year’s race was the 2004 curriculum change that added a statement about intelligent design to the ninth-grade science curriculum.
The elected board members oppose mentioning intelligent design in science class. Rehm was one of 11 parents who sued the board in U.S. Middle District Court. The trial concluded Friday and Judge John E. Jones III hopes to have a decision before the year’s end.
Effects on ID Case
Regardless of the election results, those six weeks of the trial have not been lost, according to attorneys on both sides.
“The suit goes on,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. “The mere election of a new board does not change anything.”
Harvey and defense attorney Richard Thompson of Thomas More Law Center said Jones has a set of facts to use to determine his ruling.
Harvey said he did not want to speculate on the fallout of what the new board might do. Thompson gave several scenarios.
The new board could change the policy and determine how it will handle legal appeals. It could keep Thomas More or choose another firm if it wishes to continue the case to keep intelligent design in the curriculum.
If the judge rules against the board, Thompson said, the new board could decide not to fight and could therefore be stuck with the plaintiffs’ legal fees, as requested in the suit.
“What is done is done,” Reinking said about the court proceeding, “but to take it to the Supreme Court? To me that won’t be an issue.”
ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said if the board abandons the intelligent design statement, the plaintiffs want a court order stating the new board won’t re-institute it.
“It actually is a way to conclude the litigation,” Walczak said. “The parties sign essentially a contract that says they will stop the unconstitutional conduct.”
Outside ID
Though intelligent design has captured international attention, it was not the only issue in the election.
For example, Dapp said looking at the district budget is one of the new board’s first challenges.
Property taxes, fiscal responsibility, a teachers contract and full disclosure of board members’ actions arose during the campaign.
Roughly 200 teachers attended the board meeting Monday night to show their support for a new contract. Their old contract expired in June.
Sandi Bowser, president of the teachers union who lives outside of the district and didn’t vote for board members, said the union didn’t officially support one group, but the teachers who have been vocal supported Dover CARES.
“I think that the people who are working with Dover CARES have children in the district and are concerned about some of the things that are going on including intelligent design in the science classroom,” she said.
Gone all day, visiting, and back to find a thread with 220 replies already on the rout of stealth creationism in Dover, PA. Oh, well! I'll take good news when and where I can get it.
Oooohhh Rahhhh!!!!!
<< Creation science is to science what Ebonics is to English. >>
Professional Creationists and IDers are nothing but "Liars for the Lord." That pretty much sums it up. That is disgusting to this Christian -- and it alarms this conservative Republican.
On the contrary. I, and most of us here, have been greatly informed and enlightened by your always erudite posts, and we are proud to have you on our side.
I was particularly amused by its link to solicit donations for the rebuilding of Noah's Ark.
"A project to recreate Noah's Ark in Frostburg, Maryland as a last day witness to the world. Donations needed, please help them out."
I'd sooner donate to recreate Hogwarts.
Couldn't be more clear.
When you write "Forcing religion into the public schools is a violation of the First Amendment (yes, even by original intent -- try reading some Madison and Jefferson on this topic)" you don't really mean that, you mean something else somehow hidden in the content.
When you reply to " The argument in the Dover lawsuit centers around the motivations of the school board, not the curricula." with " Wrong on two counts." you don't really mean wrong on two counts you mean something else.
And when I ask you to point out the "forced religion" in the disclaimer you reply with " The part where it's a Trojan-Horse attack on science in the service of a religion. The part where it twists the truth in the service of a religion. The part where it misrepresents science education in the service of a religion. The part where it is disingenuously crafted to make ID-creationism sound on par with evolutionary biology. The part where it pushes "Of Pandas and People", which lies about science in the service of a religion. The part where moneys were raised in churches with the express purpose of supporting religion via this change in the classroom. The part where the board members crafted it *as* support for their religion, *as* a way to advocate God to the students." which never addresses "forced religion" in the text. Your try to address that with a brief mention of "Of Pandas and People" but the text makes it clear that nobody is forcing anything at which point you go on to ascribe motivations which is what I claimed was the central issue in the first place.
The disclaimer may offend your sensibilities Ichy but there is no constitutional right not to be offended.
And thus my analogy to Lemaitre stands without you laying a glove on it.
But I do get a few chuckles when you go into the exasperated, condescending intellectual thing.
Why would you want to be grossly dishonest like that?
At least you didn't call me a liar.
I say the majority of the scientists out there think ID should get a fair shake, but are afraid to admit it to their peers due to the fact that the institutions they work for are usually run by atheists. It's all about job security. So there, genius.
You believe God created the conditions for evolution to flourish, correct? Is that not Intelligently Designed Evolution?
it saddens me that schoolboards are not being allowed the slightest discretian in at least acknowleding that other viewpoints are out there.
Please name a scientific theory being "shut out".
I had written:
<< Professional Creationists and IDers are nothing but "Liars for the Lord." That pretty much sums it up. That is disgusting to this Christian -- and it alarms this conservative Republican. >>
Michelangelo responded:
<< You believe God created the conditions for evolution to flourish, correct? Is that not Intelligently Designed Evolution? >>
Thanks for providing a perfect example of what I was saying. It is equivocation -- and I believe it to be deliberate equivocation -- thus, a lie -- to switch definitions like this. ID is not about "God creating the conditions for evolution to flourish" -- and I believe you know this is not what ID is about.
If you don't know this -- then read up on it and learn your error. If you do know this -- well -- QED.
Actually, it was a serious question. Seems to me, Theistic Evolution is basically Intelligently Designed Evolution.
Spin is spin, but less than a hundred votes separating out of 5-thousand cast makes it under 2%. That's like Toomey-
Specter here last year.
First of all, a law and a theory, when it comes to scientific writing, are completely and traditionally different. A theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about a particular scenario.
A law differs from a theory in that it's a principle that consistently holds true under certain circumstances. Right now, evolution hasn't been demonstrated in real time outside of a laboratory, and it isn't completely in its results. That's what makes it not a law.
I definitely agree that evolution fits the category of theory much more than hypothesis. However, ID can be considered a hypothesis. Yes, I admit it's loose and does border on the metaphysical, but it still falls into the category of a concept that can be experimented with, as we have definitely done as humans.
This guy is excellent. Right on the money.
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.