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.
In a word, yes. FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
No argument there. But the case outcome did have precendent that supported the decision. What I or you may personally believe and what is case law are two different things.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
At the time of the Framers, most people learned these things in church, where those who have made a lifetime of devotion and study are the teachers. Not those in a secular world.
You are trying to frame the argument on the merits of ID and the fight against what many are referring to Darwinian materialism. That was not what this case was about. That's also what the Discovery Institute is also trying to do. And the Trojan Horse I mention, while not in their materials spelled out as such, is contained in their wedge document.
God created us, the universe and all the living things and seas. But there is also scientific evidence that shows things are also a bit more complex than just "six days of poof". Some of the Darwinian theory tries to explain that. A lot of it falls into known scientific evidence. Some doesn't. And a lot remains unanswered.
But the fact remains, that ID is the Trojan Horse to move the Creation Theory back into our schools. It's almost as bad as Peter when he denied God three times. ID does the same.
For that, I'm dismayed in my fellow believers.
#####I don't know of any teacher's talking about parallel universes either. I do think that the scientific establishment WOULD be upset if parallel universes were discussed as accepted science.#####
I never said anything about accepted science. Just a discussion of parallel universes as a possibility. No one would object to that. But a designer as a possibility would be forbidden.
i.e. if you can't measure it, it don't exist..
Interesting concept.. The Shultz syndrome.. "I see nothing, know nothing, do NOTHING".. when it comes to things I don't know and can't prove, exists.. LoL..
The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?
So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?
Your PC isn't any better than theirs. Better to eliminate PC entirely.
I can't imagine how you derived this conclusion from what I wrote.
Actually, there are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary and those who don't.
I know of no scientist in their right mind who would make that claim. There is indeed a large void in our knowledge. The void is filled either with the supernatural or the undiscovered or both. But to say that science can discern between the the supernatural & undiscovered is dishonest. Such things lie outside the province of science and, while they make for interesting conversation, don't belong in a science curriculum.
If it ain't testable, it ain't science.
####Parallel universes is scientific speculation, though I doubt very seriously if most scientists would think it should be discussed in a classroom. The Designer is a theological speculation.####
How is discussion of a parallel universe scientific if it such a universe can't be observed, measured, falsified, etc., by the standards you fellows have set up for science to follow?
Personally, I don't think much time should be spent on discussing parallel universes, but it wouldn't bother me if they were discussed a little. Nor do I think much time needs to be spent on discussing a possible designer, but I see no reason to forbid it.
Indeed, there are two separate issues involved. On the one hand, the intelligent design movement seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition.
On the other hand is the intelligent design hypothesis which must stand or fall on its own merits: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
The issue of motive of the supporters (on any side) is a legal sidebar. And as you have so clearly explained - whether in law, policy or education - one can speak of God and yet neither promote nor establish a religion.
In the end, the Supreme Court will clean up the mess it created with the Lemon decision.
#####The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?#####
It wouldn't be discussed at all. It's generally forbidden. If it can't be discussed at Harvard how can it be discussed in Public School #32?
I think my claim is evidenced by the fact that there is an enormous bulwark against teaching anything contrary to evolution in the public schools.
How do you know?
Let us assume all the above is true. Given that there is no objective measure for "design" and "purpose", as established previously and demonstrable mathematically, of what use is your definition in demonstrating intelligent design?
Remember, just because P implies Q does not make the assertion that Q implies P a valid construction. Elementary first-order logic.
#####So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?#####
No, I'm not for censoring science at all. But there are leftist groups who are, and who get away with it.
####Your PC isn't any better than theirs.#####
If I had any PC, I'd agree.
#####Better to eliminate PC entirely.#####
Agreed.
And how do we measure pain/pleasure, love/hate, joy/sorrow just to name a few qualia?
"How do you know?"
Because God can't be observed, directly or indirectly. :)
All qualia are grounded in physical, measurable phenomona. How directly and precisely one measures it is a function of technical capability.
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.