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.
Speaking for myself, highball, I appreciate your knowledge and explanations. I have serious doubts about the theory of evolution, particularly the idea that we can trace our ancestry back to micro-organisms. However, I have never and would never state categorically that it isn't true. Perhaps that was God's way of doing things, but I doubt it. I think there's a lot more to it than we yet know or can understand. And I don't think the issue is so clear cut that people who question the prevailing theory of evolution should be dismissed as idiots.
I would disagree with you on one thing. I have great confidence in the ability of proponents of evolution to find someway to include a 2M year old homo sapiens fossil.
Carbon 14 dating used to be reliable back to about 35,000-40,000 years, but advances in shielding and now AMS dating have extended it to about 50,000 years. They are also working on advances which may make 80,000 years possible, but that is still a few years away most likely.
This is one of my fields, so let me know if you have any other questions.
I see , SOoo the locals are too stupid to determine what their own Kids should learn?... Since they actually hold the federal giverment as secondary to the well being of thier own children.. and that they alone are qualified to determine what their own kids learn.?...
The federal money trail Slimes all it touches, ALWAYS, in every case.. My dear Highball you are a SOCIALIST, or maybe worse.. Giverment "IS" the problem, not the solution, in every case.. Except in National Security and even then National Security is Slimed to the extent democrats are involved.. and federal employees are used..
Thanks. Always learn something on here.
What gravity "IS" is a theory, that it is, is not..
And I don't think the issue is so clear cut that people who question the prevailing theory of evolution should be dismissed as idiots.
I don't see that happening here, if those questions are actually based in scientific methodology. If anyone's doing that, it's wrong and I would call it out when I see it.
On the other hand, people who:
deserve to be ridiculed when they try to insert their PC into science.
Faith is a wonderful thing. I wouldn't dream of making fun of anybody's faith. But when someone insists that their faith is science, I reserve the right to call them on it.
Just when I thought that the general level of this conversation had been raised.
hosepipe, kindly recant your slur. Namecalling does you and your position little credit.
If this is not immediately obvious, you are sufficiently ignorant of the mathematics that I am wasting my time discussing this with you, particularly given your resistance to actually learning mathematics. Come back when you understand the words you are using at a sufficient level that educated humans will have some idea of what you are talking about; there is more to communication than randomly stringing together important sounding words. Just because you cannot understand something does not make it nonsense.
Start with Li and Vitanyi. That book has many of the answers you seek, though I doubt you'll give any consideration to its authority either.
C-14 is only accurate to about 50,000 years. The decays of other elements are used to determine older dates. Potassium-argon dating for example, is reliable back to hundreds of millions of years; Uranium and lead trapped in zircon crystals can give dates going back billions of years. Elements that are used to date more ancient ages are conversely not accurate for more recent dating, which is why Carbon-14 is relied on to date relatively recent prehistoric artifacts.
#####The best reason for oppose teaching ID in science class is it will put a religious claim on the dissecting table. When religion tries to play by the rules of science, it tends to lose. Whatever you believe about miracles, they are shy about leaving evidence. I don't think you want religious beliefs subjected to the requirement that they must be supported by evidence.#####
That's a very good point.
#####I'm just pointing out that where quota systems exist, groups will push and shove for advantage. I don't see this as having anything to do with the establishment clause.#####
But the Harvard incident does show that PC politics can trump science. The Harvard science faculty would have risen up in outrage at a suggestion that critics of evolution be given a few minutes of time in freshman Biology, but they quietly capitulated when feminists denied the existence of scientific data on male-female brain differences. The hapless Harvard president, who had merely suggested such brain differences as one possible reason for the male dominance of fields such as math and physics, had to apologize and recant while feminists from the Harvard faculty went on national news shows and denounced any reference to such evidence as sexism and oppression.
Any "supreme being" that comes under science's purview is not all that supreme. More like an "above average being" or "pretty good being".
Sad but true. We see it in the polls about ID, as well.
Science is composed of scientists, like politics is composed of politicians.. If a scientist has an atheistic qualia his science will/ can be skewed to an atheist bent/spin..
Science is only as pure as the scientists are.. Know any Pure scientists Highball?.. What makes them pure?.. And are they only as pure as you think you are?.. Quoting science as something pure begs the question.. since science is no purer than the humans doing it.. And Highball, when science is mixed with MONEY-(grants, academe, capital research as an investment) the whole discipline gets skewed or even screwed.. when money, livilyhood, career, honors, grants, retirement, healthy care(perks), Ego, and many more things than that are involved.. Course I overlooked the politics of science.. as a 90 per cent plus liberal( i.e. atheist) Edu'jacking of Americas colleges adds to the mix.. and not only Academe but on down to kindergarden..
####Sad but true. We see it in the polls about ID, as well.####
But why are many scientists so cowardly in confronting feminists or multiculturalists and yet so "courageous" in opposing ID'ers or creationists? Isn't it because they know the media will applaud them for battling the latter, while battling the former will get them bad press and perhaps cost them tenure or grants?
You see "socialist" as a slur?... Any democrat is a defacto socialist, and any big giverment republican are socialists.. and Most/many recieveing social security payments are socialists..
You argue FOR federal giverment involvement in education.. I thought you might appreciate being called a socialist.. Sorry, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and most probably votes like a duck.. Forgive I'm not too smart.. to me it IS A DUCK.. If indeed you are federal giverment employee (a.k.a. a Goose) speak up.. don't be mute.. Geese need some fire under them as well..
Interesting point, puroreau, and an interesting decision to make come crunch-time. Surely there are many who do not consider themselves 'one-issue' and rebel at the notion of applying litmus tests, but, even for them, there must exist out there somewhere a 'deal-killer' which would compel them to withdraw their support, if not just outright make an active switch in their support.
Is a relatively trivial issue such as ID v Evolution sufficient to cause the Science Community to overhaul its constitutional convictions?
Besides that you bypassed by comments.. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.. and Probably Hillary Clinton as well.. <<- Sauls most famous, high profile student..
These are my impressions of the presentation, generally in the sequence is which it was presented, but some bits and pieces may be out of order.
The program was opened with a prayer by a Lutheran minister who is also a physicist. Miller then introduced himself, and pointedly thanked the minister for the prayer, saying that he (Miller) joyfully took part. He explained that he is a Catholic who loves science. His theme, he stated, is "We live in interesting times."
The presentation was accompanied by a slide show, which was not completely effective for the webcast, as the images were quite small. The first slide showed a number of book covers representing Miller's output of textbooks. His most famous book (Finding Darwin's God) is now in its 23rd printing.
He quickly reviewed the Kansas school board politics since 1999, pointing out that earlier victories for science had been reversed with the last election there, and that he would be personally campaigning on behalf of science-friendly candidates there next summer.
He then began to talk about the nature of the ID debates that he frequently gets involved in. Those who debate in favor of ID always claim that their position is purely scientific and that God is not part of their "theory." But when he leaves the auditorium, he frequently encounters ID supporters with signs telling him that he'll burn in hell for denying ID.
Miller feels that the underlying sentiment from the religious supporters of ID is that the TOE is actually "evil," and whether evolution is true or not is irrelevant. He mentions that Answers In Genesis (the website) claims that the TOE is the foundation of all evil.
He went back to the subject of school boards and talked about Cobb County, Georgia, the home of the famous textbook sticker. Recounting a telephone interview with a reporter who was looking for a soundbite about his textbooks being stickered, he told her that he thought that the sticker didn't go far enough -- that it should say "This textbook contains science, and all science, is theory, and should be considered carefully, etc..." (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea). He told the reporter that the sticker should be in all science textbooks, not just biology, because singling out biology tells a fourteen-year-old that "there's something wrong with biology" that's not wrong with physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
He touched on the difference between fact and theory, the nature of a scientific theory, and said that the "Atomic Theory" will never grow up to be the "Atomic Fact". This is all familiar territory for the crevo threads.
Miller was lead witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial. He presented his testimony, and was then cross-examined by the defense lawyers for two days. There were NO questions about his testimony. The defense lawyers did nothing but quote-mine his textbooks, bringing up statements and phrases that could possibly be construed to support the concept of ID. He said that this was a surprise, and that he had prepared to be challenged on his testimony, but that they never asked about that -- only his early writings. He had no problems at all with the cross-examination.
The Dover board was ousted in the next election, of course, but I was surprised to learn that the new board members are actually Republicans that registered as Democrats to be able to run against the incumbent Republicans. The population there is 75% Republican. Miller said that the ID folks had the "home field advantage" in Dover, and since they couldn't win there, they couldn't win anywhere, and "ID is dead."
A questioner at the end asked, "What's next? We know that they won't give up. What will be the follow on to ID?"
"Critical Analysis Of Evolution" will be the next theme. Who could object to that? A better sounding wedge from the PR department of the Discovery Institute.
The body of the talk was mostly on details of the various things that are "controversial" in biology -- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting sequence, transitional forms (too many, not too few), and the comparison of the Chimpanzee and Human genomes. All of which were familiar to me from the contents of the crevo threads.
Miller many a number of positive comments about Judge Jones. The Judge did get a bit exasperated with the defense for sending up five people in a row to testify about the flagellum, saying "Oh, goody!" after being told that the next defense witness after a break would talk about the flagellum. The witness acknowledged the judge's remark by saying, "I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's fifth husband -- I know what to do, but I don't know how to make it exciting."
On the book, "Of Panda's And People," Miller recounted the discovery process where the plaintiff's lawyers found the original documents where all cognates of the word "Creation" were replaced with the equivalent "Design" words, and nothing else was changed. He asked, "Didn't they learn anything from the Nixon Administration? Why didn't they burn this stuff?"
The first questioner said that she knew Behe, and she asked "What happened to him? He was such a nice man, why did he get involved with this?"
Miller recounted the earlier comments about the IDers believing that evolution is evil (which doesn't seem to apply to Behe -my comment), and then discussed Behe's indifference to documentation presented during the trial. Behe was shown 58 papers and 9 books written about the blood clotting sequence, and he just waved them away, saying that wasn't enough.
The impression that I got from Miller about Behe is that he's obsolete. He wrote up his ideas and talking points in the 80's and early 90's, and he's read nothing since. He's living off the lecture circuit, repeating the same debunked ideas over and over.
The second questioner asked why scientists can't defend themselves adequately in the media. Miller said, "We suck at getting ideas out," and went on to talk about the discovery (about 18 months ago) that the human chromosome 2 was equivalent to a combination of the chromosome 2 and 13 in the chimp genome, and that all great apes (and probably the common ancestor of humans and modern apes) have the separated pair. He said that this should have made the mass media, but was little known even in scientific circles. Thanks to Ichneumon (and others), we heard about that here at least a year ago.
Responding to a question about Islam and creationism, Miller said that he gets email from Iran, and that Islam teaches that the TOE is a Christian plot to destroy Islam.
And someone asked about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Miller responded by saying that he's a big fan of satire, and that humor lubricates the discussion. Then he advised reading Judge Jones' formal opinion of the Dover case, saying "He's a funny guy."
The question period suffered from being in a school auditorium where the questioners could not easily be heard and understood. Also, many of the questioners just wanted to get a word in, and didn't really have questions. And at least one went off on an anti-Bush rant about fascism that was largely incoherent.
I have more details if anyone cares, but my notes are rather sketchy. Don't take any of the quoted passages above as 100% accurate, ad I jotted down the keywords and filled out the quotes from memory.
And I started it with a typo...
It actually took place Tuesday evening, 1-3-2006.
Many on here tell me there are no laws - only theories. I thought gravity was a law but was informed it is still only a theory.That is correct. I hope this finally clears up the confusion on your part.
Actually there are laws. The problem however is, that she thinks they are the next higher step from "theory".
Laws in science are, despite their name, merely descriptive and not prescriptive.
They are in other words a mathematical description of the regularities of a model. In most cases (actually I'm not aware that there are any exceptions) a model is only a good approximation of a natural phenomenon within certain boundaries which means that outside of these boundaries the laws are simply false (IOW they diverge too much from observed reality to be useful).
A good example of this is the ideal gas law which describes the behavior of a (nonexistent) ideal gas. Nevertheless, it is still useful because many gasses come pretty close to an ideal gas within a certain temperature and pressure range.
Now laws can be proven if you're working only with models because so far you're just doing mathematics. Doing science means checking whether these models (and the laws you derived from them) describe reality and to what extent because nature is under no obligation to comport with your models.
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.