Dover CARES sweeps election (Intelligent Design loses big)

York Daily Record ^ | 11/9/2005 | Michelle Starr

[PatrickHenry]

Something tells me they are going to have to find a different name, before it gets laughed to death while it's still in the intellectual crib.

Maybe they can just call it "The Controversy." That seems to be all they've got. As a case study in quackery, it's probably worth a mention in some course on abnormal psychology.

ATTENTION KARL ROVE: Dump ID. It's a loser. Dump it now!

[Stultis]

Yours is the first post on this thread that hit the nail on the head.

Thanks, but I didn't think to mention probably the most damaging result: Lots more influence for the teachers' unions.

[Ichneumon]

I don't think it's ID that got the school board dumped. I suspect very strongly that is is demonstrated dishonesty.

You say po-TAY-toe, I say po-TAH-toe...

ID *is* "demonstrated dishonesty".

[Central Scrutiniser]

Congrats to Delaware! Good to see there are states that understand science and don't want to live on a flat earth and pretend its still the dark ages! (aye, don't sail too far, there be monsters there at the edge of the earth!)

[Palisades]

Any criticism or alternative theory is to be discreditied via a religious smear. Unable to explain your precious evolution on a molecular level, unable to prove your theory of macroevolution, unable to state evolution in a LAW, you resort to personal invective and castigation.

The funny thing is, you creationists/IDers claim to be awfully fond of letting local communities decide whether or not to teach evolution.

Them when the people of a community reject your political agenda and show your pet politicians the door, you throw a hissy fit.

[Ichneumon]

Just get evo out the classroom too, cause science its not.

You are entirely and grossly mistaken. Please explain where you "learned" such an enormous falsehood, and why you are so misguided as to post it here.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The board was too busy ignoring constituents to address the teachers' contract?

[Ichneumon]

Not a big loss in percentage terms.

Eight out of nine of the members of the "ID" supporting school boardwere up for re-election.

100% of them were defeated. Eight out of eight -- every single one of them was given their walking papers by the voters.

Deal with *that* "big loss in percentage terms", and stop trying to spin it.

[Ichneumon]

"ACLU attorney Witold Walczak" This says a great deal about the case, the election, and the direction of the debate.

Yes, it says that Republicans hand victories to the ACLU when they get involved in the "ID"/creationism garbage.

[Junior]

Now cover the other eye and try again.

[Ichneumon]

Science is based on some facts, but also theories that have not always proven to be factual. Example, the theory of evolution, and it's multitude of missing links.

You have very large misunderstandings about what science actually is and isn't. First, science does not deal in "proof". Second, there are far fewer "missing links" in evolutionary biology than most people try to imply. Third, The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly huge and independently cross-confirming -- the few paltry things that naysayers can point to that are "missing" are entirely beside the point, and such complaints are intentional attempts to deceive and distract from the existing evidence.

[dmz]

Absolutely LOL. At you, not with you.

First you say this "Always nice to see you secular, anti-christ, anti-american neo-darwinist zealots are alive and well. With you wackos at the helm the Reformation never would have occurred!"

followed by:"Unable to explain your precious evolution on a molecular level, unable to prove your theory of macroevolution, unable to state evolution in a LAW, you resort to personal invective and castigation"

Seems you like to resort to personal invective and castigation as well. Have you considered reading what you post for internal inconsistency?

[From many - one.]

Would you settle for "'taters"?

My take is that what folks -think- ID is (sort of a maybe-scientific underpinning to Creation) wouldn't necessarily get the board dumped... a majority may agree with that perception of ID.

Knowing that board lied is a different kettle of fish ('taters) altogether, though.

[Quark2005]

Have you considered reading what you post for internal inconsistency?

Also interesting to note that the real Doctor Savage has mentioned "millions of years of evolution" in a matter-of-fact way on his conservative radio show on multiple occasions, is quite biologically literate, and once considered Charles Darwin to be a personal hero. Quite ironic.

[Clemenza]

GOOD NEWS for a change!

[Right Wing Professor]

The Fleeing Cur is the lamest of trolls.

[RadioAstronomer]

for anyone not sending a probe to the outer planets?

Been there, done that. :-)

[Ichneumon]

This may seem heretical but I'm actually not all that much in favor of teaching science in elementary school. All too often, no, make that almost always, "science" is taught as a bunch of dry, boring facts to be memorized. The magic goes away. No one's fault really. People wouldn't be elementary school teachers if they themselves had been caught up in the excitement of real science.

Something along the lines of Isaac Asimov's essays on science (e.g., those in collections like "The Stars in Their Courses", "The Relativity of Wrong", etc.) would be a *great* science curriculum, especially for gradschool level, since they focus not on math and analysis, but on the nature of scientific discovery.

They're little snapshots of how various discoveries in science were first suspected, then thought of, then investigated, tested, and validated. They read like exciting detective stories (because in a way, they are), and in the process give a marvelous understanding of how and why the scientific method accomplishes things, weeds out error, and uncovers real knowledge.

A great deal of my love of science is due to reading Asimov's essays as a child.

Also the essay "The Relativity of Wrong" should be required reading by all confused IDers/AECreationists. It nails one of their most frequent fallacies (the notion that if a theory isn't 100% correct, then it's 100% wrong). We see this fallacy from the creationists again and again, especially in their comments implying that everything in science routinely gets thrown entirely out the window every generation or so to be replaced with something entirely different (in fact, most of past paradigms are still standing, albeit with later refinements), and their strange belief that if they can identify even one minor flaw or unresolved question in evolution, then they've destroyed the entire theory. This fallacy is also involved when they think that scientists changing a minor detail the vast body of evolutionary biology (e.g. where exactly a given species sprang from in the tree of life) shows that science "doesn't really know anything" or is some kind of "complete rewrite" of evolutionary biology, etc.

[RadioAstronomer]

Science is based on some facts, but also theories that have not always proven to be factual.

Actually "facts" in science are far more susceptible to change than a theory. Also not matter how much evidence is accumulated, a scientific theory will never change into a "fact" or a "law".

Also there is more evidence and backing up the theory of evolution that gravitation theory.

[Quark2005]

This may seem heretical but I'm actually not all that much in favor of teaching science in elementary school. All too often, no, make that almost always, "science" is taught as a bunch of dry, boring facts to be memorized.

The magic goes away.

I understand your point - I was lucky enough to have some good teachers at that age that totally mesmerized me with science, though; shaped the future path of my career. Kids that age might be better serviced by a specialist science teacher who floats from classroom to classroom, showing up a few times a week to really show kids the "interesting" side of science with experiments, etc. (Such things cost $$, though, unfortunately...)