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.
No, it's not a joke. Science from a theistic or atheistic point of view is never entirely testable or falsifiable. To that extent "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative of objective reality.
Both, OTH, present the observer with a different way of going at the evidence and explaining it, and thus the observer is left with more than one choice. He can blindly choose one or the other, or he can weigh the evidence from one or the other and then choose. Neither should suffer the federal government to tell them their point of view is not worthy of consideration in a scientific forum. That is why I welcome both atheistic and theistic science in public schools. And yes, the two approaches tend to commingle despite their polar foundations. That's okay. 1s and 0s commingle too, with wonderful results.
But should the possibility of God be banned from scientific discussion? This is where you and I likely have a disagreement that can't be bridged.
I'm not for turning science classes into theological discussion sessions. But I wouldn't completely ban the possibility of God from the realm of science any more than I would ban science from religious discourse.
I have no idea if there are intelligent beings on other planets in the universe. None have ever been observed. Is it possible that someday we may receive a signal or visit from them? Sure. But until then there's no reason for science to take a firm position either way on the issue. It would be absurd for science to be structured in such a way that denies the possibility that such life exists (or conversely that insists on it).
Given that we can't at this time scientifically determine whether such life exists, I wouldn't spend any significant time in science class on this issue. But I wouldn't judicially shut down such discussion, or have judges sit in judgment on the motive someone had in placing a paragraph in an Astronomy textbook suggesting that maybe there's life out there in space.
If a kid came home and told me they spent a whole semester of science discussing possible alien lifeforms, invasions, contacts, etc. I'd think they were wasting class time but if I learned they spent one day on that topic it wouldn't bother me in the least.
I'll readily grant you that science can't determine whether or not God exists, so that issue has no reference point for a scientific investigation, but I don't see any problem whatsoever if, for example, a single day was spent in science class discussing whether or not a deity or other intelligence authored the order we see in the universe, or created life here.
It's this hysterical obsession with driving any thought of God from science that seems so extreme to many of us.
Actually, the more science delves into such things as quantum mechanics, the more convinced I am of God's existence.
"But should the possibility of God be banned from scientific discussion?"
It's not a scientific question. It's a theological/philosophical one.
"I'll readily grant you that science can't determine whether or not God exists, so that issue has no reference point for a scientific investigation, but I don't see any problem whatsoever if, for example, a single day was spent in science class discussing whether or not a deity or other intelligence authored the order we see in the universe, or created life here."
If, as you just said, the question of whether there is or isn't a God is not capable of being determined by science, why would you want it discussed in a science classroom?
I wouldn't mind seeing God discussed in science class because it could well be true that God is responsible for life existing on earth, for order existing in the universe, etc.
Much as we would all like to think so, that simply is not true. You cannot denude observers of their inherent biases. Science cannot happen without human observers. While it may appear to be totally illogical, the reality of theistic and atheistic assumptions effects science continually. It's not a bad thing. It just is.
Obviously science makes a good many statements that make no reference whatsoever to a deity or lack thereof. That does not make the science itself agnostic. It only makes its particular statements agnostic.
Bear in mind that all the heat we are generating over this issue touches on a very small segment of what science is about. The objective agreement between atheists and theists when it comes to science is tremendous.
We are not having riots and lawsuits in my town because our public schools make use of science textbooks that exclude references to God. We should not have riots and lawsuits either if someone happens to come along and suggest that organized matter behaving according to predictable laws may be better explained by intelligent design.
If the possibility of God is not a scientific question, then why does science declare God is outside of its purview? Is it qualified to make such an assertion? How so?
It is no surprise at all that science continues to corroborate what is written in the biblical texts. A virgin birth is but a minor anomaly from a scientific standpoint. Not to mention floating axe heads, water into wine, walking on water, and resurrections from the dead. Make no mistake about it. God is scientific, and He created a scientific world.
I didn't say science says "God is impossible." I said science says God is outside of its purview. You happen to agree. I am asking how you and/or science are qualified to make such an assertion. If science is not competent to make statements regarding God, then how can it with competence state that God is outside of its purview?
Well, I guess we've reached our usual point of total disagreement again! :-)
I guess my final word for the night is that I just don't see why such discussion should be banned. I happen to believe that we wouldn't be here without God and that there would be no order in the universe without God, or no universe at all for that matter. Millions share my belief. We see order. We see life. We perceive consciousness. We don't think it just happens to be here.
Millions disagree with me, of course. They believe the universe is self-existing, that life somehow arose from non-living material, etc.
I don't believe science can determine which is true. But it seems as if we're being told that atheism is the default position of science. That science is to be carried out on the assumption that the atheist worldview is the correct one.
Personally, I have no particular desire to bring God into the discussion of every detail of science, any more than I would do so in a discussion of carpentry or golf. However, science is a much more complex subject that does at some points reach into areas that have theological implications. Why do things operate as they do? Where did life come from? How did we get to where we are as humans?
I don't think it's a foregone scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist, and I see no harm in brief consideration of the possibility God does.
You have noted, I believe, that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I agree with you on that. But I guarantee you that if a school science text contained a single sentence saying that, that the ACLU and many people here on this thread would be screaming for a federal judge to march into the school and rip out the offending page. They'd make some excuse, of course, such as, "Why did they single out the science text to say that when the cooking and typing textbooks didn't include a similar disclaimer?"
Anyway, good discussion as always! Remain healthy until the next debate!
I would agree!
You misrepresent, or misunderstand what I've said. I accept two types of science as having validity, neither of which operate under falsifiable assumptions. Furthermore I made clear that it is incumbent upon every observer to make a choice based upon those two, and gave the options. There is most certainly a way to choose between the two. Everyone is born with it, and everyone does it. Whoever they are, and whatever choice they make in this regard, it is not the prerogative of the federal government to favor one or the other.
LOL!! I know what you mean. I made a similar experience myself. Unfortunately I don't remember the phrase that got replaced but I know we had a good time when reading the "new" version ;-)
Troll-free placemarker.
Wishful thinking ===> Placemarker <===
I wouldn't mind seeing God discussed in science class because it could well be true that God is responsible for life existing on earth, for order existing in the universe, etc.It may well be. But it isn't a scientific claim. It doesn't belong in a science classroom. Any more than the proposition that Xenu did it does.
Indeed. It's scientifically empty since it's trivially true: an omnipotent being could have created just about anything. It could even have created the whole universe while I was typing this sentence.
In other words it's stating the obvious about an entity whose existence cannot be verified empirically.
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.