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.
"I suppose it would be unscientific to assert that you exist either since there are NO peer-reviewed articles stating as much."
Pretty funny. longshadow, however, is not a scientific theory. He is a human being (presumably). He can present himself in person if necessary. No scientific theory is involved here, so there would be no paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise.
Of course, he could be a web bot, responding semi-intelligently to threads here on Free Republic. You could be a web bot, for all I know. So, how do we tell?
We could do some testing. Let's see:
Test 1. Do the postings make sense?
Test 2. Do they follow, logically, the progress of the thread?
Test 3. Are the postings based on some real knowledge, or are they merely rehashes of information commonly available on certain websites?
Having applied these tests, I have determined that longshadow is a human being. I have further determined that Fester Chugabrew may be a human being or a web bot. Further testing will be needed.
TOE is still just a theory. Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures. Now drop something. Hmmm.
Ultimately, this fight is not over a "creator." It's about what causes the scientific method ought to address, going forward. FWIW
Just like you to keep changing your story.
Maybe it will happen with ID in the future. Or can you predict the scientific future also?
Can gravity be proved?
"TOE is still just a theory. Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures. "
You ARE determined to restate the obvious again and again, aren't you.
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory. Nobody has said it is not. I cannot prove to you that humans descended from ape-like creatures. I can, however, show you a great deal of evidence that makes that a very, very likely progression.
You cannot argue against the Theory of Evolution, mlcnnnn, by saying that it is a theory. That's already stipulated. It is a theory.
Truly, they should "care less" as you say. Thanks for your post!
And you can't argue that because it is a theory, all science is theory.
It's always a pleasure to have one's humanity reaffirmed...
;-)
Maybe that's all science has been doing all along. Do you really think that attribute of "supernatural" as applied by each and every observer establishes the nature of what is being observed? Is human understanding the sole determinant of what is or is not supernatural? Why should such an arbitrary attributition be accepted as "scientific?" Because you, or some other observer says so, or because a whole group of observers happen to agree? What if God is ultimately as "scientific" as it gets? Is it our understanding, or lack of understanding, that turns Him or His works into something else?
"Can gravity be proved?"
Do you mean the force attracting two physical bodies to each other? Yes, that's easily demonstrated.
The theory of gravity is not about that commonplace phenomenon. It's much more complex than that. Sadly, I do not believe your background in the sciences is adequate to understand a brief explanation of it.
You can find much material on the theory of gravitation on the web, however, if you're of a mind to learn something.
"And you can't argue that because it is a theory, all science is theory."
Huh? You're not making sense there. Did I argue that?
Since complexity has not been defined consistently by IDists and ID uses an unfounded and demonstrably false assumption that natural causes do not create complexity they have a lot of work to do. Maybe they should get started. Soon.
1. How do you know?
2. There is no way to put the force of gravity under a microscope either.
Further testing has been completed. Fester Chugabrew is definitely a web bot, rather than a human being.
Publication will appear in a future issue of Nature, once I've completed the paper.
Believe in what exactly? Turns out no one is really sure what gravity actually is. (For instance whether it's a force like electromagnetism or more a property of space/time as effected by matter/energy.) The equivalence between gravity and inertia -- suggested by generally relativity -- is not understood. Indeed it's not understood why there even is inertia if relativity is true, as it certainly appears to be. (How does nature "know" to create a "centripetal force" if all motion is relative?)
You say that there is a "law" of gravity, and there is. But look a little closer and you find it's not a real law because it's not universal. Real laws are supposed to apply in all relevant circumstances. But to universalize the (Newtonian) law of gravity you have to apply it in the context of a THEORY (e.g. general relativity).
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.