Revote today [Dover, PA school board]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

[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.

[peyton randolph]

Seems like the George Washington era folks knew a little more about it than you do.

Yes. They bled him to death. Current medical uses of leeches are different...and based on science...unlike faith-based ID.

[furball4paws]

Why, why, you, you....you're a godless atheist. You, you (sputter)

[Fester Chugabrew]

But what would it mean to "believe IN gravity." That makes no sense to me, really.

It's kind of like believing in leeches, as when one accepts a body of data without fully understanding its basis and implications.

[BenLurkin]

8^)

[thomaswest]

Since gravity has been discussed on this thread, I think this account is appropriate. There are several versions on the Net.

NO ONE has yet posted, to my knowledge, a clear refutation of this.

---

Warning: Gravity is "only a theory"
by Ellery Schempp

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a "fact," when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal." Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon has to go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two high tides every day--not just one. It is far more likely that tides were given to us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.

While micro-gravity is observed when, for example, dropping an egg on the floor, this does not prove that macro-gravity exists. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Some say that planetary orbits are proof of gravity. According to gravitationalists, gravity applies in a straight line between different objects. Gravity does not make things spin in circles. But the planets do move in circles, and then gravitationalists say such orbits prove macro-gravity. This is merely circular reasoning.

There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far out-weighed by what it does not explain.

When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations." But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have superior methods that effectively overcome the weight of masses at Northwest, and thus harness forces that succeed over so-called gravity.

It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it. If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, it is ridiculous to take it seriously at this time.

Finally, the mere name "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." And, if we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

[highball]

None of those other subjects rests on a THEORY!

You obviously don't know what the word "theory" means in science.

Let's get our terms straight:

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"; "true in fact and theory"

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"

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

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

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"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs. Words, after all, mean things.

Now you know. You can't claim ignorance of the word's meaning next time.

[pby]

"...unlike faith-based ID."

I am not an IDer, but...Can you demonstrate, via existing evidence, and without any faith (or assumed conclusions, which is a demonstration of faith), the Darwinian evolutionary claim of the simplest single cell organism (the point in time right after abiogenesis ends in the primordial soup) evolving into the diversity of life that we observe today?

And, scientifically speaking, how can you (or anyone else) judge the correctness, or validity, of faith-based claims (if ID is faith-based...Is it any more faith-based than Dr. Crick's Directed Panspermia "theory"?) when "science" can not, or does not, address issues related to the supernatural?

Isn't the claim that there is no supernatural unscientific in itself?

[highball]

Isn't the claim that there is no supernatural unscientific in itself?

In a word: No.

Science deals with the physical world. The supernatural supposes that there are unconstant forces that we cannot see, test or measure. That, by its definition, places it outside of the realm of science.

It is not unscientific to say that astrology is not science. It is not unscientific to say that the "evil spirit" hypthesis of disease is not science. It is not unscientific to say that ID is not science. All of them presuppose unknows forces that we cannot measure, none of them address the evidence.

[pby]

Thanks for the offer...but no thanks. I am not in need of a virgin.

Didn't anyone tell you? Creationists don't need to purchase virgins...they marry them.

[thomaswest]

But what would it mean to "believe IN gravity." That makes no sense to me, really.

Reply: It's kind of like believing in leeches Bible as a scientifically valid text, as when one accepts a body of data writing without fully understanding its basis and implications. ID is obviously an attempt to prove the 'existence of God'. It is odd that ID accepts multiple entities as 'the God'. Seems to violate the first 1,2,3 Commandments

[highball]

It is odd that ID accepts multiple entities as 'the God'.

They have to say that it does (wink, wink). How else are they going to do an end run around the Constitution?

[pby]

You did not answer the question I asked.

I did not ask if "it" ("it" equalling the supernatural) qualified as science.

I asked if science could judge the validity, or existence, of anything related to the supernatural given that it does not deal in it.

The answer has to be "no"...If science does make judgements or proclamations related to the supernatural, then it is dealing in the supernatural and loses it's scientific status.

[highball]

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

None of what you posted doesn't change the fact that the supernatural isn't within the realm of science, and science should not be faulted for ignoring supernatural explanations, especially when there is plenty of evidence to support a natural explanation.

[thomaswest]

You posted: "And, scientifically speaking, how can you (or anyone else) judge the correctness, or validity, of faith-based claims (if ID is faith-based...Is it any more faith-based than Dr. Crick's Directed Panspermia "theory"?) when "science" can not, or does not, address issues related to the supernatural?

Isn't the claim that there is no supernatural unscientific in itself?"

Reply:
Just where would your view make a contribution to science or education? I have 42 students in my chemistry lab doing a simple acid-base reaction in Chem 101 as part of them observing how chemistry works. One of the pairs says, "We do not agree with the experiment's objectives or results. We have results that are not in agreement with your old text. We see evidence of supernatural intervention. We think the litmus paper is governed by Satan, and our results cannot be judged by non-Christians. We include in our write-up that a supernatural entity intervened in our experiment."

I have a poverty of imagination. I note that acid-base reactions are not mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps you can explain to me how these students help us to understand the naturalistic world around us? In terms of the correctness, or validity, of faith-based claims??

[Fester Chugabrew]

How else are they going to do an end run around the Constitution?

One does not have to do an "end run" around the Constitution to favor a policy that respects people of all faiths, including atheists, in public schools. Nor does one have to do an "end run" around the Constitution to argue in a court of law against the establishment of purely atheistic science in public schools.

[highball]

One does not have to do an "end run" around the Constitution to favor a policy that respects people of all faiths, including atheists, in public schools. Nor does one have to do an "end run" around the Constitution to argue in a court of law against the establishment of purely atheistic science in public schools.

But that's not what happened in this case. Had they tried to make that case honestly, we would be having a different discussion.

The board knew that their plan wouldn't pass Constitutional muster through the clear guidelines already set down by the Supreme Court. That's why they tried to hide their real motives, and that's why they tried to hide the money trail. They got caught lying about it, and that's what got them in real trouble - it showed their guilty consciences. They tried an end-run, and fell down in the attempt.

By the way, science doesn't "disrespect" people of faith. It isn't "atheistic." Science is science, its deals with the natural world, and it's neutral to religion.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Note the ensuing "scientific" reply. Why science would want to adopt such arbitrary terms as "natural" and "supernatural" is beyond me. Ask science, "What is supernatural," and all it can say is, "Whatever is 'natural' or cannot be examined by science."

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.

[Stultis]

purely atheistic science

There is no such thing. There are atheistic, and theistic, and all other variety of interpretations OF science. Science itself however is neutral apart from a minimal set of assumptions adopted for operational purposes (Occum's Razor, actualism or the uniformity of natural law, etc).

[peyton randolph]

Creationists don't need to purchase virgins...they marry them.

That's funny. So did Mohammed. Of course, his was 6 years old and he waited until she was 9 to deflower her.