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.
Sorry, but 1984 has already come and gone.
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.
That was mentioned in one of the earlier threads, but the point got lost in the all the shouting.
"I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's fifth husband -- I know what to do, but I don't know how to make it exciting."
LOL
... 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.
I'm sure the Judge was impressed.
Hmm ... So you've accepted my criticism of your notion, since your question above implicitly accepts it as accurate. It's progress.
To continue, "the theory of those who understand everything to be evidence of evolution?" I can't be sure I know what you're trying to state here, but if it's what I think it is, there isn't anyone like that ... except people who gets their scientific information from creationist websites. But for those who actually know something about science, the existence of electrons is not understood to be evidence of evolution, the planet Jupiter has nothing whatever to do with evolution, and color theory is irrelevant. That's just three off the top of my head. Examples abound.
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.
And there may be an invisible pink leprechaun out there ... so what? Your incoherent streak remains unbroken ... if it's matter, it's organized. If it weren't, wouldn't be matter. (You might want to read up on what constitutes a scientific "falsification," btw. Your attempt isn't even close).
It just hasn't been falsified to date. The probabilities are in its favor.
Would you please provide the calculations you've use to come up with these "probabilities"? Too bad tortoise signed out; I'm sure he/she/it would love them.
I've fed you enough today, Fester. I'm crossing the bridge now. Have fun scaring the billy goats. Bye-bye.
I have to second that. IMO tortoise is one of the more knowledgeable posters here on FR whose posts on Information Theory were very much appreciated and I can say that as a layman, I learned a lot from him. Of course his posts on other topics such as evolution, firearms, wine, etc. were quite interesting as well.
I hope he heeds your advice and returns to FR, although reading his exchange with a certain poster I can understand his frustration and his decision to leave.
Possibly, but one could easily explain them as a product of evolution and know something about science at the same time. There is no phenomenon that could not be explained as a product of evolution. Does that disqualify evolution as science? No.
There is no observable phenomenon today that could not be explained by intelligent design either. My point is that falsifiability or lack thereof does not establish the scientific nature of any pursuit. Falsifiability is only one of many tools human reason (science) has to work with in gaining knowledge.
Would you please provide the calculations you've use to come up with these "probabilities"?
How does one quantify the amount of matter that is organized and behaves according to predictable laws?
“Of course they are NOT.. If they were, they would not have been selected, let alone confirmed..”
I am not as melancholy at the prospect as you. I think we stand well to get at least approximately what we anticipate in these two men.
“The shredders are running on overload currently..”
Of course. [grin]
“They have no clue that "inalienable rights" are inalienable because of God.. it was his idea and God is the authority secureing them.. ”
It’s not so much that they have no clue; it’s just that they don’t like it (as in very intensively don’t like it).
“They(the spiritual INS Agents) think the federal giverment secures them.. Could be many think God is a joke and inalienable rights are also a joke..”
Verily, many do say that God is either dead (nonexistent) or a joke (irrelevant to man and all of the rest of existence alike), and that inalienable rights therefore are an illusion. Rights can only come from society (government) they declare. They give lip-service to the idea of government by the consent of the governed, but the veneer is wearing thin, and quickly drops away at the least hint of discomfort or inconvenience.
All those who share the idea that The People exist to serve the state, as opposed to its polar that the state exists to serve The People, suffer from the same collective illusion of the state as the supreme being of the universe - the fount of all knowledge and creation (State Akbar, one might say). They must believe in the state as the supreme being. How could they do otherwise if they are to claim that the state must be served? If it is true to the contrary (as it is) that The People created the state, why would they worship at the foot of their own creation?
But, for the devout statist, there is much worse to come. If it is true that the state does not exist to be served by the people, surely it must nonetheless be obeyed by the people if it is to accomplish any good. But, if the state can command obedience, what is there to prevent the state (that is to say, the people who administer the state) from commanding that which is evil rather than that which is good? So it is, after thousands of years of trial-and-error, that we have come to the idea that not only is the state not to be either worshipped or served, but that it must not be given any great amount of power to even commend obedience. This is the statist’s ultimate nightmare; a state not worshipped - a state not served - a state not even permitted any great amount of power to command obedience.
Imagine, if you will, how might read the Genesis Chapter of the statist’s book of government devotion:
"In the beginning State created the earth and proclaimed Heaven a myth believed only by the ignorant among those who were yet to come."
"And the earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon its waters."
"And State declared, ‘Let there be light,’ and, after all the proper forms were completed and the necessary regulatory findings were promulgated, there was light in the space of but a few billion years."
"And State saw the light, that it was good; and State divided the light from the darkness, proclaiming the light day and the darkness night, so that those who would show up in the service of the State Almighty would know when to stamp the forms and when to rest for the next day’s putting-off."
"And State emitted great quantities of gaseous matter to provide even the darkness with sufficient light so that those who were yet to come would not stumble over the homeless on their way to the toilet, with its government-mandated flushing capacity of just one and one-half gallons."
"And the seven and one-half hours of morning and afternoon were the official first day."
"And State divided the waters, raising up dryland in their midst, so that great edifices could be erected in Its service and dedicated to the greater glory of State Almighty. And State declared the divided waters to be called seas and oceans, and the dryland to be called federal preserves. And State saw that it was good."
"And State commanded the dryland to bring forth all manner of grasses and herbs and great tress, each yielding its seed to the earth, and State created all the little creepy-crawly critters that they might enrich the soil and feed the seeds so that they might replenish themselves and keep the air pure; all in compliance with State’s EPA regulations and the Clean Air Act. And State saw that it was good."
"And the seven and one-half hours of morning and afternoon were the official second day."
"And State commanded that the waters of the seas and the dirt of the dryland should bring forth abundantly all the creatures great and small that hath life and move first in the seas in compliance with the Pure Water Act, and then also on the environmentally assessed dryland, and every winged fowl to fly in the pure air: and they shall all be known as protected species. Thusly was created the forests and grasses of the Wilderness, and the great seas, and the great purity of air and life-giving rain, all each in its own pristine glory."
"And State commanded that the days and nights should gather themselves together in perfect order that they might be signs of the changing seasons and passing years so that those who were yet to come might measure the proper lapse of time before the issuing of a building permit."
"And the seven and one-half hours of morning and afternoon were the official third day."
"And State looked about and saw all that It had created was good, but that It still had not anyone to serve Its best interests and to protect all the creatures that have life and move in the seas and on the dryland, and the fowl that fly on the air, nor the sea itself, nor the land itself, nor the air itself. So it came to pass that it was the time for those who were yet to come to be created by State and be brought forth, that they might serve State to fulfill Its wonderful vision for the perfection of the Universe."
"And State declared, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness: and let him serve our interests, and let him protect the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and the cattle, and all the Earth, dirt and water, and be subservient to every crawly thing that creepeth upon the land and in the water, and, verily, even in the air.’ So it came to pass that State sought out the place of the worst watery and muddy muck, and did kneeleth in the filth and the slime, laboring to create, and did create man in Its own image, in the image of State, male and female created It him."
"And State charged mankind, male and female, that they serve It to Its greater glory, and to be subservient to every crawly critter that creepeth on the dirt and in the water and air, and to leave no footprint themselves save in the service of the power and majesty that is State."
"And the seven and one-half hours of morning and afternoon were the official fourth day."
"So it was that it came to pass that State created all the wonders of existence in but four days, overcoming all previous records, so that mankind, Its servant, might have an official three-day weekend to collect at the lakes and the other gathering places in devotion and celebration of the manifold wonders and glories of State, the Almighty."
Amen.
Well, that sucks. Your posts have always informative and thought provoking; in particular they led me to start reading up on information theory which I find fascinating. Best wishes.
Uhhh . . . Alexander Hamilton?
“How do you tell a Socialist:-”
I don’t know, but you can’t tell him much.
Chill, dude. Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. It may apply to biology of course, but that is hardly all that can be explained by evolution. Everything can. Everything can be explained without God, too. Does that make such an approach more "scientific?" No. No matter how much you thnk it does.
If you can't test your claim, it can NEVER be science.
And the claim that God is always and forever outside of science cannot be tested, so such a claim can never be science, or scientific. You dig?
You are confusing the term evolution for the Theory of Evolution, which deals ONLY with biological organisms. As a word that just describes *change*, it doesn't explain anything. It's descriptive. When you use it in the vernacular sense to mean *change of any kind*, it is NOT a theory. It is an observation, nothing more. The ToE is COMPLETLY different.
"Everything can be explained without God, too. Does that make such an approach more "scientific?" No. No matter how much you thnk it does."
Are you now arguing that God is not testable? Think before you post, Fester. If everything is explainable without God, then there is no phenomena that could be observed that could not just as easily be explained as being from natural processes as being explained by a Designer (God). The idea of science is to be able to make a weighted choice between different options, such that your can have confidence that your choice is the better one. If both options have the same explanatory power, then NIETHER can be chosen over the other. :)
"And the claim that God is always and forever outside of science cannot be tested, so such a claim can never be science, or scientific. You dig?"
The claim that God is not examinable by science is an epistemological reality, it is not in and of itself a scientific statement. As you already know though, I have REPEATEDLY stated that the examination of God by science is NOT Forever outside of science. Why do you keep restating falsehoods that I have corrected you on already? God may be examinable by science at some later date. Right now, He isn't. You have already stated He isn't testable now. Why do you want to make a mockery of both science and theology?
The theories and laws of science cannot be proved, only confirmed or falsified.
However, assuming the theory or law to be true, deductions can be made (proven), and then tested.
Given Newton's theory of gravity, we can calculate the trajectory something will follow. Any introductory text on the subject, or many calculus texts, will have the proof that there is an escape velocity. But keep in mind that the proof assumes the truth of the *unproven* theory.
You're finally getting somewhere. Congratulations.
God may be examinable by science at some later date. Right now, He isn't.
For whom do you speak, and from what knowledge?
Why do you want to make a mockery of both science and theology?
It is hardly a "mockery" of science to posit the idea that organized matter that behaves according to prectable laws is best explained by intelligent design. Nor is it a mockery of theology to suggest that God really did, and really does do, what He says.
I went back to the judge's ruling to see what his response was, and I found that the relevant paragraph was about the immune system, not the blood-clotting cascade. I checked my notes, and this reference by Dr. Miller was in the middle of his talk about the blood-clotting details, so either I wrote it down wrong or he misspoke. I'm not willing to watch the webcast again to find out, so here's the correct quote from the ruling:
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.
Global search and replace can do funny things. I remember chuckling over program listings which contained the words "redunp.qdant" and "redunp.qdancy" all over the place. All source files in a huge code library had been pasted to replace the string "dan" (Disk Access Number) with "p.qdan" (a certain kind of disk address embedded in a larger record).
"You are now entering... the Fester Zone."
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.