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.
"This dinosaur bone is x number of years old," for example. That's a fact."
Come on. There are always scientists who disagree with other scientists about everything. And haven't the ways they prove age changed over time?
Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
Often thought that, but stiffled myself from actually saying it.. Cleaned out my clock actually repeating this verbally.. Thanks I needed that..
I composed that entire reply in the hopes that you were serious about this conversation, and that's the best you can do?
As the founders provided for, and recommended I might add..
Look, no one is going to change their mind on this subject which should be obvious to you. Therefore I don't take it very seriously. If you do, fine.
Yes. They have become more accurate.
And will probably become more accurate still, correct?
Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
You'll have to take up your disagreement with ID's proponents, then - that's exactly what it is, by their own admission.
Additionally, in this very case the school board members were caught admitting that in bringing ID into the science class, they were specifically intending to introduce "creationism" and "Christianity."
The text book that the board wanted to direct students to was a Creation Science textbook with the words "creation science" cut out and replaced with the words "intelligent design."
I'll agree that not everybody who wants ID in the classroom does so because they're interested in pushing "a species of Christian creationism." But you cannot deny that the major players certainly are, the organizations behind it certainly are, and the people involved in this case certainly were.
Look, no one is going to change their mind on this subject which should be obvious to you. Therefore I don't take it very seriously. If you do, fine.
Wait, you're not interested in actual evidence?
What exactly is the point of asking your questions, then?
LoL.....
As if it matters, whether by stealth or directly, that the scientific model of intelligent design controverts the atheistic assumptions of a handful of folks. It does not matter whether the people involved in this case try to make their point directly or indirectly. The reaction from those who prefer to see the government establish atheistic principles in the science classroom will be the same. As usual the issue is twisted into one of methodology vs. substance, much as democrats do when they whine about how the memo was obtained as opposed to what the memo says.
Radiometric dating (discovered in the first half of the last century) enabled the first measurements of the age of rocks with any viable degree of accuracy. Using different isoptic rates, statistical uncertainties of <0.1% in the age of rocks 100's of millions years old has been achieved in some circumstances.
Prior to the discovery of radioactivity, estimates of the age of the earth had little accuracy, and the practitioners of geology at the time knew that.
Science continually refines its results - it rarely (if ever) needs to dump them all and start from scratch.
Beautiful sound bite.. LoL..
Oh, please.
This isn't about "atheistic principles in the science classroom" unless your definition of "atheistic" is "anything not reinforcing my religious belief."
Science is no more atheistic than math. You may want to infer a Creator from the presence of both, and such is your right. Unless you have physical evidence, however, you're not dealing with science.
But you knew that. We've discussed this before. You just choose to redefine words to make them mean what you prefer they mean.
Poppycock. As if evolutionists at the operating table consult Charles Darwin. The operating table entails specific physical functions that are scientifically accessible regardless of religious persuasions. "Hey, before I slice you up, I just want to remind you the earth is 4.5 billion years old and your ancestors were apes." LOL!
It is when it operates under the assumption that a supreme being is not, and will never be, under its purview.
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.