Dover CARES sweeps election (Intelligent Design loses big)

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

[VadeRetro]

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.

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.

[2ndreconmarine]

Oooohhh Rahhhh!!!!!

[Ulugh Beg]

<< 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.

[Virginia-American]

These people want to put Landover Baptist out of business.

[RightWingAtheist]

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.

[peyton randolph]

Priceless website.

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.

[jwalsh07]

Are we clear now?

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.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

It *is* garbage, and you sort of "forgot" to mention the vast numbers (an overwhelming majority) of very *non*illiterate scientists who agree on that point.

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.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

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.

You believe God created the conditions for evolution to flourish, correct? Is that not Intelligently Designed Evolution?

[eleni121]

it saddens me that schoolboards are not being allowed the slightest discretian in at least acknowleding that other viewpoints are out there.

---

It more than saddens me..it scares me. So called science is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. Yeah right. These Darwinists are all about shutting out anything but their own theories based on so much flimsy evidence.

Some science. Highly suspect...and more than that -dangerously fascistic.

[Dimensio]

These Darwinists are all about shutting out anything but their own theories based on so much flimsy evidence.

Please name a scientific theory being "shut out".

[eleni121]

Please name a scientific theory being "shut out".

---

Let me see if I can help. Who said scientific theory? Using the lingo defined by the establishment makes no sense. Shutting out the free exchange of ideas is what I said. Have trouble reading?

Theories are defined and promoted by the scientific establishment. AS such, I prefer to use "free exchange of ideas" a term which is more all encompassing and allows for a vastly more broad scientific playing field and field of inquiry.

[Dimensio]

Let me see if I can help. Who said scientific theory? Using the lingo defined by the establishment makes no sense. Shutting out the free exchange of ideas is what I said. Have trouble reading?

So we should just let any crackpot notion get a mention in science classes, just to be fair? If someone wants to claim that his pet cat created the universe Last Thursday, that should also be examined?

Theories are defined and promoted by the scientific establishment. AS such, I prefer to use "free exchange of ideas" a term which is more all encompassing and allows for a vastly more broad scientific playing field and field of inquiry.

The "establishment" doesn't define theories. The "establishment" -- in this case, the scientific establishment -- defines a set of criteria that an explanation must meet in order to be given consideration. Other "ideas" aren't shut out because of some elitism, they're shut out because they fail to meet fundamental criteria that would establish them as meaningful explanations in the first place. Intelligent Design, for example, is non-falsifiable. There is absolutely no hypothetical observation that would prove that Intelligent Design did not occur. As such, there's no possible way to define actual evidence for Intelligent Design, because any observations are consistent with it. Because of this, as an explanation, Intelligent Design is worthless.

[Ulugh Beg]

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.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Actually, it was a serious question. Seems to me, Theistic Evolution is basically Intelligently Designed Evolution.

[Nextrush]

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.

[LizzieBorden]

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.

[LizzieBorden]

Whoa. Easy there, boy.

I'm just saying logically if we're going to talk science, then there's no reason that either concept should be eliminated from a curriculum. I'm not being malicious.

[RightWingNilla]

Here's John Derbyshire's latest Corner posting

This guy is excellent. Right on the money.