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.
Most recently it's been your mathematical lack of certitude as to whether statues form themselves or not; whether they typically involve any application of intelligence in their formation. Would a picture of a statue assist in giving you a clue? Maybe it is your eloquent system of mathematics that is clueless in identifying intelligence.
Is it a mystery to you whether or not that bridge is a product of human intervention and intelligence?
Good heavens. The guy that built it is standing right in front of it!
Think about the statue scenario very carefully, particularly about the priors and assumptions that you are using. You do not even understand your own argument, so it is unlikely that you will ever understand mine.
Scientists falsify hypotheses and by extension theories, not forces.
In other words, even maggots, leeches, and termites have some positive attributes, which places them ahead of the Democrat leadership.
Your idea that any intelligence in any place at any time demonstrates universal intelligence everywhere at all times is unsupported by any evidence.
Science recognizes gravity is a force. Of course the force itself is unfalsifiable. It is a given. It is not tangible either. That is to say only its effect is manifest to the senses, not its essence. Does that make it by its very nature an "unscientific" object for consideration? No. Science draws inferences from, and describes in much detail, this force by observing its effects.
There is no reason science cannot address or consider the factors or forces that cause matter to become and remain organized while behaving under predictable laws by using a model of intelligent design, for just as the force of gravity cannot be falsified but inferred, so can the operation of an intelligent agent not be falsified but inferred.
Denying intelligent design where matter is organized is like denying the force of gravity when objects are attracted to one another by mass.
"Blah blah blah. You're so smart and I'm so dumb. Blah blah blah. I'm so smart and you're so dumb. Blah blah blah."
That's fairly well been your argument so far. Got anything else?
Since you have not properly expressed my idea I'll have to agree there is no evidence for your idea of my idea other than your idea. Intelligence in one place does not "demonstrate" intelligence everyplace else.
But there is a decent amount of evidence that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, and that intelligence tends to support that kind of activity. There is also decent evidence that everything known to man can be mathematically embraced; that there are constants. This, too, may be understood as evidence of intelligent design, without with no thing would be intelligible in the first place.
Incoherent as ever.
Intelligence in one place does not "demonstrate" intelligence everyplace else.
But there is a decent amount of evidence that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, and that intelligence tends to support that kind of activity.
The incoherence continues. Sometimes intelligence doesn't support "that kind of activity," which may or may not be what you mean, but it's hard to know what you're driving at. Is the activity you're referring to the "behaves" in your sentence?
There is also decent evidence that everything known to man can be mathematically embraced; that there are constants.
She held me in her mathematical embrace. When I tried to balance our equation, she caught me trying to divide by zero. She told me to take a hike. Another constant.
Are you the Fester Chugabrew who's been using his militant ignorance to bludgeon tortoise about mathematical theory?
This, too, may be understood as evidence of intelligent design, without with no thing would be intelligible in the first place.
You understand everything as evidence of intelligent design, which, indeed is why ID is worthless as a scientific theory. And you haven't shown how my summation of your notion is in any way incorrect, to the surprise of no one whatever.
And with this, I think it is time for me to end my long run on FR. It was fun but I have ventures to run, research to finish, classes to teach, and a life to live. More often than not, the time spent posting here is not worth the effort, even if modestly entertaining and occasionally quite enjoyable. I owe beers to many.
As I've updated my profile to reflect, I am moving on. I am a doer rather than a talker, and FR has taken up far too much "doing" time. I'm sure those ever vigilant against atheistic communistic math and science will appreciate the respite as well. I have history to write and an obligation to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future whether they like it or not.
Cheers!
(lurk mode engaged)
Yes, what you said.
(lurk mode engaged for real now)
Temporarily, I trust. Your input will be missed. Upon what I hope will be your return, try to husband your resources by ignoring trolls.
So then how scientifically strong is the theory of those who understand everything to be evidence of evolution? Besides, there may be some unorganized matter out there that does not behave according to predictable laws, so it is not as if my scientific model is unfalsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified to date. The probabilities are in its favor.
And not to forget that rare transitional "cdesign proponentsists".
;-)
Holy cow! Great job in filling in the play-by-play account. We bandwidth-challenged are forever in your debt.
Really? Then I guess you never heard of "Therapeutic DemocratsTM". You can tie them up and use them as a punching bag.
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.