Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Also today, Dover's board might revoke the controversial intelligent design decision.
Now that the issue of teaching "intelligent design" in Dover schools appears to be played out, the doings of the Dover Area School Board might hold little interest for the rest of the world.
But the people who happen to live in that district find them to be of great consequence. Or so board member James Cashman is finding in his final days of campaigning before Tuesday's special election, during which he will try to retain his seat on the board.
Even though the issue that put the Dover Area School District in the international spotlight is off the table, Cashman found that most of the people who are eligible to vote in the election still intend to vote. And it pleases him to see that they're interested enough in their community to do so, he said.
"People want some finality to this," Cashman said.
Cashman will be running against challenger Bryan Rehm, who originally appeared to have won on Nov. 8. But a judge subsequently ruled that a malfunctioning election machine in one location obliges the school district to do the election over in that particular voting precinct.
Only people who voted at the Friendship Community Church in Dover Township in November are eligible to vote there today.
Rehm didn't return phone calls for comment.
But Bernadette Reinking, the new school board president, said she did some campaigning with Rehm recently. The people who voted originally told her that they intend to do so again, she said. And they don't seem to be interested in talking about issues, she said. Reinking said it's because they already voted once, already know where the candidates stand and already have their minds made up.
Like Cashman, she said she was pleased to see how serious they are about civic participation.
Another event significant to the district is likely to take place today, Reinking said. Although she hadn't yet seen a copy of the school board meeting's agenda, she said that she and her fellow members might officially vote to remove the mention of intelligent design from the school district's science curriculum.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator. Supporters of the idea, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, insist that it's a legitimate scientific theory.
Opponents argue that it's a pseudo-science designed solely to get around a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that biblical creationism can't be taught in public schools.
In October 2004, the Dover Area School District became the first in the country to include intelligent design in science class. Board members voted to require ninth-grade biology students to hear a four-paragraph statement about intelligent design.
That decision led 11 district parents to file a lawsuit trying to get the mention of intelligent design removed from the science classroom. U.S. Middle District Court Judge John E. Jones III issued a ruling earlier this month siding with the plaintiffs. [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..]
While the district was awaiting Jones' decision, the school board election took place at the beginning of November, pitting eight incumbents against a group of eight candidates opposed to the mention of intelligent design in science class.
At first, every challenger appeared to have won. But Cashman filed a complaint about a voting machine that tallied between 96 to 121 votes for all of the other candidates but registered only one vote for him.
If he does end up winning, Cashman said, he's looking forward to doing what he had in mind when he originally ran for school board - looking out for students. And though they might be of no interest to news consumers in other states and countries, Cashman said, the district has plenty of other issues to face besides intelligent design. Among them are scholastic scores and improving the curriculum for younger grades.
And though he would share the duties with former opponents, he said, he is certain they would be able to work together.
"I believe deep down inside, we all have the interest and goal to benefit the kids," he said.
Regardless of the turnout of today's election, Reinking said, new board members have their work cut out for them. It's unusual for a board to have so many new members starting at the same time, she said.
"We can get to all those things that school boards usually do," she said.
You posted: They have to say that it does (wink, wink). How else are they going to do an end run around the Constitution?
Reply:
Agree. In my view, separation of religion and government is good for both society and religious institutions.
The ID mindset is superstitious in nature. There are many people who are happy to see science and rationalism debased, because they hold to views about psychic phenomena, UFOs, appearances of the Virgin Mary in weird places, astrology, dowsing, predictions of Nostradamus, hidden codes in the Bible, reincarnation, a heaven/paradise after death, and a hundred other non-rational beliefs. The fundamental issue is a rational, healthy outlook on the world, with joy in its beauties and sadness for what some people sometimes do vs. a supernatural outlook, in which gods intervene willy-nilly, some people have "hidden psychic powers", and happiness is determined (or pre-determined) by weird un-understandable forces that do not stand up to rational inquiry.
The evolution/development of modern understandings of disease and medicine is a powerful statement of the value of science, unencumbered by 2000-year-old beliefs. In Biblical times, nobody knew about sperm or ova or the circulation of the blood or about germs or about physics or geology.
The notion of ID dismisses everything learned--at considerable human effort--in the 2000 years since.
1. Evolution is faith-based, which is demonstrated via the assumed conclusions that are accepted despite the actual evidence (HOX gene mutations responsible, in large part, for lobe-finned fish transformation from fish to land-dwelling mammal with arms/legs and hands/feet with digits, feathered dinosaur frauds Sinosauropteryx and so on, and etc.)
It takes faith, not evidence (sometimes in spite of the evidence), to construct an evolutionary model that shows a simple single-celled organism, in a primordial stew, evolving into the diversity and complexity of life observeable today.
2. Science does not ignore the supernatural. It attacks it...especially on these threads (as evidence of this, please note a previous post on this thread in which the poster mentions the flying spaghetti monster in opposition to the God of the Bible. Also see Dawkins, Gould, and others who freely offer opinions on the supernatural and related beliefs).
Science, especially around here, attempts to decontruct the supernatural...not ignore it.
There is not "plenty of evidence to support natural explanation" for science's theories of abiogenesis (aliens and chance).
It is a faith-based bias that leads one to denigrade, or even address, a supernatural explanation for origins...not a scientific one.
Do you consider the statement "God is outside the purview of science" to be "neutral to religion?" I consider it to be atheistic, and I consider it to be worthy of consideration in public schools. More to the point, how does one know your assertion to be scientifically accurate without adopting your presuppositions?
Oh, brother. If you don't recognize sarcasm on these boards, you can't enjoy them very much.
There is not "plenty of evidence to support natural explanation" for science's theories of abiogenesis (aliens and chance).
Reminder: the origins of life have absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, any more than Gravitational Theory requires exploring the origin of matter. It's a transparent attempt to muddy the waters.
Sorry, that third paragraph should be italicized (I was quoting you).
I hardly think it to be an "interpretation" of science to undertake it with the simple assumption God is outside of its purview or consideration. "Atheistic" is an adjective, and it applies to all science that is undertaken with the assumption God is forever and always outside of its purview. It is not a term or way of doing science that must necessarily be eschewed, but don't kid yourself into believing it is "neutral." Bullshot. Science is never neutral.
Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It is free to restrict itself to only those things it perceives as "natural." It is also free to leave itself unfettered by such restriction.
Your view does not comport with the view of the Founding Fathers, the Nation's History (even very recent history) and/or World History (thankfully).
There is no separation of "religion and government" other than the government can't establish a state run church/denomination.
Congress still opens session in prayer and has a chaplain.
A three judge panel (state supreme court...in the south somewhere) just recently decided for the public display of the Ten Commandments and other religious references, on a Ten Commandment case, and one judged stated that no reasonable person would agree with the ACLU's position in regard to there being a "wall of separation" between church and state that disallowed all religious reference.
Despite your derisive tone, yes, science does have presuppositions, e.g. the uniformity of natural law; and biases, e.g. a bias against ad hoc explanations.
The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" therefore is hardly arbitrary if, by a "supernatural" agent, we mean (as most English speakers do) one that can supersede natural law at will or whim.
Now, science is simply a means of trying to understand the natural world. Its methods, presuppositions and biases have been determined by what experience and results teach about what works best in advancing this aim.
If you can demonstrate how a science without the presupposition of uniform natural law can actually work in advancing usable or perspicuous knowledge of the natural world, go ahead. Or encourage others more able to do so. Scientists will gladly, as they have at various times previously, abandon or modify their operational presuppositions in order to admit a genuinely useful theory or principle.
WARNING/HINT: "Genuinely useful" is the tricky part.
TRUE! But see my preceding to you.
Maybe I'm missing something.. I ain't too smart.. But really ID can be no threat to the so-called "pure" scientists.. Its almost like they consider the human or public brain as their private reserve.. any other ideas are almost poaching..
Absolutely the reason education should be locally controlled.. and NOT federally controlled..
You wrote: "Ask science again "what is 'natural?'" and all it can say is "whatever can be known by science or is not "supernatural." Talk about low standards for precision. Talk about circular reasoning. Most of all talk about presuppositions and biases. And this from a pursuit that is by its very nature dedicated to true knowledge."
Reply:
I am curious about what you mean by "true knowledege". If one observes that X-rays behave in such and such fashion, as observed by scientists (physicists, chemists, radiologists), where is the place for "an intelligent deisgner"? X-rays are not mentioned even once in the Bible. They seem to be naturalistic in origin. Do you have an objection to how X-rays behave?
Could you say where the understanding of X-rays is "circular reasoning"?
I don't need your reminder that abiogenesis is different from the TOE...I am acutely aware and have been reminded by many members of Darwin Central.
The topic, however, that was being addressed was "science's" faith-based assumptions and also it's judgements on issues related to the supernatural (which it allegedly ignores or doesn't address).
The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the next MONKEY TRIAL be in Ohio?*
A talk by Ken Miller, professor of biology, Brown University
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
7 p.m.
Strosacker Auditorium
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Free and open to the public
DETAILS:
Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D., was the star witness in the recent “Panda Trial” in Dover, Pennsylvania, where Judge John E. Jones found intelligent design to be a religious view, not science. Prof. Miller is the author of a bestselling high school biology textbook that was subject to the Cobb County, Georgia, disclaimer sticker that warned students that evolution was “a theory, not a fact.” The stickers were removed by court order in 2005. Prof. Miller also is author of the bestseller, “Finding Darwin’s God.”
Questions from the audience will be entertained.
Source where this is found: here.
You'll have to learn how to spell "butt" first.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
Is Scotty going to beam me?
You want Sulu?
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.