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.
#####Next time, try researching an issue before you post your presumptions about it as if they were fact.#####
Well, I'll stand partially corrected, Ichneumon, but I would still say that nowhere in the Bible does it say the sun orbits the earth. That idea seems to have had a long scientific heritage (Ptolemy), even if the Church fathers of the day found it convenient to interpret Biblical passages about the sun rising and setting as meaning the sun was orbiting us.
The Lemon test is a problem all on its own. The Supremes have commented on it several times. The Dover decision may have been a good opportunity to clean it up, but it appears it'll be another case.
To be completely fair about the outcome of this re-vote, only those who voted the first time were allowed to vote.
What this tells me is that errors in elections that aren't caused by fraud probably wash out in statistics.
When viewed from a certain perspective, yes it is. As I said, from where I am sitting, the sun moves across the sky. In so saying I am not lying. Just stating the simple truth as things appear. When I wake up in the morning and see a beautiful sunrise, I am not inclined to engage the scientifically correct version of my observation, and most people would understand what I was talking about. In case the notion has escaped you, the biblical texts were written for an audience that resides on planet Earth, for whom the sun will, unless one is stationed in outer space, always rise and set.
NEW post 493 by hosepipe on 04 Jan 2006. Dialectic materialism and scientific materialism are sister whores in the same brothel.
Tell me if you want more.
Do we observe the same portion of lunar surface today that was available for observation by people in the 1st Century?
"In case the notion has escaped you, the biblical texts were written for an audience that resides on planet Earth, for whom the sun will, unless one is stationed in outer space, always rise and set."
Oh, not so, Mr./Ms. Chugabrew. The heliocentric solar system was discovered long, long before humans were in space. It's a pretty easy thing to infer.
The O.T. biblical texts were written for a bunch of nomadic bronze-age shepherds or goatherds. You are correct that the explanations are unscientific. Science was far in the future. That is why the Bible is useless as a guide to the scientific explanations of natural phenomena.
Any attempt to subvert science by introducing 3000 year old texts transcribed from stories told around the campfire is simply dumb-headed. The Bible is not science. The Bible is a religious text...a mixture of historical fact and fable. It's useful as a religious text, obviously, since the followers of it are the largest group on the planet. It is still not a science text. The Genesis chapters on cosmology are useless, scientifically.
You're welcome to believe them. You're not welcome to try to foist those fables off on children.
Thank you for your attention.
Damn! Who knew that the surgeons in GW's day were doing reconstructive surgery.
I just KNEW that Dolly Madison had a boob job. No way those things were real.
Sorry for my sarcasm. Occupational hazard.
And before her, the lovely (and brilliant) Connie ...
Do you think the Grand Master has taken note that our PH is somewhat of a slut-puppy?
The establishment clause protects religion from government, not government from religion.. unless you read it wrong, or omitted some text..
Amendment I = Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Note: does no law really mean some law.. or its none of government business WHAT religion does.?. I say that not having a religious bone in my body... I am a christian.. with christ is not about what you believe, its who you ARE, that counts..
But you cannot find any *organizations*, can you?
I have demonstrated to you that the major proponent of ID has the explicit purpose of inserting Christianity into science classes. That isn't in question. You can find no scientific groups that promote atheism. Surely you admit that there's a difference?
It would be a gross understatement to say the Supreme Court has taken a liberal reading of the First Amendment. Thank you for your reply!
It does both - the Founders saw the mischief that resulted from mixing the two. Both are harmed by the collusion.
Dawkins A MOONBAT.?.. Put on yer flame suit.. the Evos gonna git you.. Oh! wait progressive scientists can sacrifice much in pursuit of their goal(s).. one lone believer means nothing.. Dawkins can be road kill if he gets in the way.. of the progressive train..
You ADD to what it says, as Pat.Henry deleted from what it says.. jeese can't you guys READ or WHAT?.. It says what it says..
There is currently an opinion from the 7th Court of Appeals which has found that atheism is a religion when it is promoted. The decision was based on a litany of prior USSC decisions.
Many would argue that no less than the ACLU is bent on establishing atheism in the public square. Certainly the Newdow cases can be seen in this light. And then there are the myriad institutions of science which "officially" support methodological naturalism - but in "unofficial" debates, lectures, essays and the ilk within the community in fact support metaphysical naturalism.
This is a problem caused by the Lemon test which must be cured - since the court has gone beyond denominations and considered both theism and atheism as "religions".
"Most people would sooner die than think; and frequently, they do so."
-- Bertrand Russell
Sure. But it has never been self-evident, and it never will be until the human population is transported to that point of view from which the earth can be seen to orbit the sun. Furthermore, the heliocentric understanding of the solar system did not precede authorship of the biblical texts.
The O.T. biblical texts were written for a bunch of nomadic bronze-age shepherds or goatherds.
Gee. I guess we all better stop reading them. I repeat, they were written for an audience that experienced at the time, and an audience that still experiences on a daily basis, a sun that rises and sets. Or are you one of those people who, when the sun rises, says, "Look! An illusion created by the rotation of the earth!" Cut me a break.
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.