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.
Well to put this mystery into a context: I believe that faith and reason are not at war with each other: They are fundamentally allies in the search for Truth.
Both Judaism and Christianity have always been open to the findings of human intellectual effort, including the scientific. Perhaps there has been a bit of "lag time" involved, as in the case of the Galileo affair. But inevitably, Truth is truth, and the Church is in the Truth business. :^)
There is no one of authority within the Catholic Church that I know of, for instance, that denies the theory of evolution, or relativity theory, or quantum theory. Though the Church may have a quibble or two with the neo-Darwinist "take" on the former by reason of its severe reductionism.
We render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's; and unto God, what is God's. Now Caesar isn't necessarily in the Truth business. Indeed, most of the Caesars that I know of have gladly traded Truth for power.... That is the pressing problem.
I am not fond of politicians or judges as a class -- nor of "interest groups" who seek power (through coercion) rather than the truth of reality. FWIW
Astute observation, Fester! Thanks so much for your reply!
once = at one time
Explain to me the exact moment when there was no life, and then suddenly there was life. How and why did this happen, and what evidence do you have for your assertion?
;-)
Do you see the measure of predictive error complexity as having any use in determining when or where intelligence can be objectively identified? "Intelligence" seems to be an abstract entity, and as such it could easily be construed as beyond quantification, not to mention scientific accessibility. My thinking is obviously at a layman's level, but I tend to consider intelligence, information, organization, and design to be inseparable. I also consider them to be accessible to science, if not the stuff of which science is made.
Sorry. You must do as longshadow does, and proclaim your, ah ... bodily health.
Thanks!
You: Of course they did -- once they had sufficient reason to do so. Scientific progress was of great help in this regard
I said "condemned", not "embraced". Still doesn't make sense to me.
Allow me to join those who have praised your commitment to the actual Constitution. I'm counting down the days until Justice Alito joins the constitutionalist forces on the high court.
Intelligence is a computational property of a system that can be measured (both directly and indirectly), not something that exists independent of it. There is no more implied intelligence in or behind any "thing" than that which is intrinsic to that thing itself. Predictive error complexity does (with caveats) allow the measure of intelligence (among other things) of systems whose state we cannot fully observe. I do not want to get into the details of it because it is way too technical, but all I can say is that it does not get you where you want to go -- quite the opposite.
Which is what I've been restating over and over. Given some pattern in nature, one cannot assert any more intelligence than that allowed given the algorithmic information content of that pattern. Given some quantity of algorithmic information content, we can assert an upper bound on intelligence. You are trying to invent additional algorithmic information that is entirely unnecessary to generate the observed pattern.
Having faith is imminently reasonable.. having no faith is not possible.. You need a measure of faith to go from point A to point B and expect to get back to A safe, or even to B..
Must be "some/many" have faith in "science", so much so they make excuses for it.. Just as some christians make excuses for things they do not understand with and about Christ, when no excuse is required.. Since the truth should be paramount in both spheres.. it often isn't..
Who is "pure".?.. no one I surmise.. One day all, might be very surprised, some happily, others disappointed.. Thats the way it should be I reckon.. Neglecting "faith" is a serious misjudgement I think.. For when faith is not required as critically anymore, it will be the most precious commodity in this Universe.. proven faith.. Faith in What must be the question.. for all have faith in something.. unless they off themselves for lack of any..
I would have questions as to how the abstractions of math can be accurately applied to physical objects, and how accurately intelligence can be assessed through the algorhythmic calculations engaged. For example, if these calculations, or this definition of intelligence, can be applied to an object that is known to be the product of human intelligence, how much does it tell us, and how accurate is the telling? Has anyone tried it?
Excuse please, my dear Betty, for interjecting here, but besides providing yet another opportunity for the rule of men over the rule of law, each one of these cases also furnish a further excuse for the penetration of federal jurisdiction into what should be a pursuit of local affairs, accompanied by the inevitable assertion of greater federal authority.
We can not trust government, even local government, to impart knowledge to its patrons. Ultimately, government will teach its subjects (for that is what its patrons will become - subjects) what is in the best interest of government for them to know, rather than what is in their own best interest to know. Frequent and vehement laments on this forum, from all sides, is eloquent testimony to the truth of this claim (the factualness of the claim, for those who insist).
The harm doesn’t end there. The idea of government by the consent of the governed is likewise weakened.
The solution to this problem is obvious . . . and apparently largely unwelcome. The reward for some number of us who have proposed the solution, has been to be mostly ignored; occasionally disputed. Presumably, the majority of this forum, on all sides, prefer the issue and the argument. This is not an altogether abominable development. Illumination is cast, at least, on some ancillary issues.
LOL!
I absolutely love your "jeepers," BB.
Creepers.
(PS: thanks for the support. :>)
Exactly... there is a solution.. the one the 2nd amendment was provided for..
Thats why its the second amendment and the not third..
*target practice?.. No...
*hunting?.. Nope..
What does that leave?.. massive feminized cowardice.. maybe..
Nope, id was the id. Think about it. But not too long.
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.