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 ...
Dope-winian democrats.
"...I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about schools or scientific theories."
Nope but it does say something about government establishing religion....
What would be nice is that if along with keeping the school from establishing religion in science class, the courts would also reaffirm that each individual's right religious expression does not end when we set foot on public property -it just shouldn't be part of the curriculum.
DarweRats, hmmm. there's something to that in there somewhere. What a spectacle today. Mark Levine was great as usual tonite.
Dims are such b utt brained ass faced hypocrites.
They exhort fanatic adherence to Darwinian
teaching to attack any form or sembelance of
education that puts forth any theory that
suggests there might be a creator or superior
being...and yet when it comes to the way they
actually *live*, and the "values" they hold...
they are in direct contradiction, and oblivious
to, all the main tenets and dogma of Darwinism..
that is except for the part where Darwin talks
about the evolutional culling, and weeding out
of the biological chaff...*that* is where Dims and
Darwin seem to be in greatest synchronicity.
"Secular Humanism, and Socialism, appear to be
nothing more than misnomers for "The Future
Darwin Award Winners Society' and Mad Hatter-ism.
The "Social Justice" they all praise so highly,
is just another name for the Lemming-ism of
the masses.
This goes to show the problems that can crop up when you force other people to pay for the education of your own children.
I have no problem with what they teach their 14 year olds. I have a problem with what they want to teach my 14 year old.
If they want to make their kids stupid, so be it. After all, when they grow up, my kids will need someone to wash their toilets.
As an evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design Theory accepts that evolution does in fact occur, and is therefore fundamentally opposed to biblically literalist "creationism."
Archival ping.
Another case of Democrats landing squarely on the wrong side of an issue: War on terrorism, Gun rights, Abortion...
Nonsense.
There is no science in ID. At best it might be called a hypothesis. But, there has been nothing to support it.
In an article a few threads back, the author compared the number of journal citations for ID to other areas in biology, including evolution. The score: evolution had tens of thousands, ID had none, "horse feces" had 97. The author's salient point was that ID might achieve a level of respectibility of horse feces when it too could have 97 citations.
The time frame was from the late 90s, when ID was first proposed, to the present.
The only thing ID'ers have is cheap attacks. Never any substance.
"I have no problem with what they teach their 14 year olds. I have a problem with what they want to teach my 14 year old."
Same way I feel about Evolution.
They wouldn't know real social justice it it bit them in the you know what.
Waiting to watch Brit Hume tonight to see all that happened today. Rush was going off and it was too late to make his show but...it will be on tomorrow's show and can't wait to hear what Rush has to say about these dim/lib/dem creatures...especially dim witted harry that pathetic little man.
Is that a fact? Look at what you wrote in #7. Is "If they want to make their kids stupid, so be it. After all, when they grow up, my kids will need someone to wash their toilets." a statement full of substance and was not a cheap attack?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Congress shall make no law....
People tend to forget that only COngress is prohibited from doing one thing and that is "making a law". The Constitiution does not guarantee the seperation of Church and State. It specifically prohibits the Government from establishing a state sponsered church, as was the case in England several hundred years ago, and prohibits it from interfering with the free exercise of religion. The Federal Government should not be interfering with education because it's not one of the responsibilities outlined in the Consititution. Everything that is not specifically delegated to the Federal Government is the responsibility of the states. By doing this the Government is officailly endorsing Atheism, which, I seem to recall hearing recently, has been declared a religion. Recognising that something exists is not endorsing it. Also, which religion is it that the Government is being accused of endorsing?
You are correct. It was a cheap attack.
The difference is we have substance too. My point was that the IDers have only the cheap attack.
I will not repeat endlessly the same posts that have been made here. However, Patrick Henry's list of links page has most of the central ones, including Ichneumons rather extensive posts on the subject. One of his posts has literally more academic content than the entire output of the ID community.
And where is the evidence that there is NO design to the universe? What evidence can support the idea that evolution is undirected? If there is none then it seems that evolutionists are going on faith because they believe something that cannot be supported with evidence. So why should undirected evolution be taught as a fact? I doesn't seem that there is any substance to the claim that there is no ID.
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.