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.
Don't forget that the John Templeton Foundation hands out around $60 million per year to explore religion & science issues, and they refuse to support ID.
"Lots of parents can't afford private school.
"
All parents can afford Sunday School, though. There's a good place to learn religious teachings, along with the home. School is an exceptionally bad place to get religious instruction.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Our kids today get dumber and dumber and less literate, and they are taught more about evolution than previous generations.
I find it intriguing that one would suggest on the one hand that science is not "atheistic," and then in the same sentence declare science to be wholly incapable of accessing the supernatural (whatever that means; as if it has already been scientifically ascertained what is and what is not supernatural). Saying the supernatural "cannot be studied scientifically" is neither open-minded nor scientific in and of itself. Unless of course one is beholden to atheistic underpinnings from the get go. And that is fine. That is why atheistic science should be allowed in public schools. But it should not be established by law.
Find me any competent scientist who doesn't believe in gravity. I'll be waiting.
There is no good evidence he died as a result of the leeches. Most likely pneumonia.
"Saying the supernatural "cannot be studied scientifically" is neither open-minded nor scientific in and of itself."
OK, then. Suppose you tell me how the supernatural might be studied using the scientific method. Just a general outline will do.
Science deals with the physical world around us. That is all it can deal with. We have no tools with which to measure what is not part of the universe we inhabit.
There is no godmeter. There is no way to put deities under a microscope. The largest telescope can see nothing that doesn't exist in temporal space.
So, how do you propose that science would investigate supernatural phenomena. It cannot. So science simply ignores the supernatural, since, by definition, science cannot study what is not part of the physical universe.
So you concede that ID really isn't science (which has no concern with "beliefs")?
Not true. In fact the law of gravity is limited. Gravitational theory (General Relativity) is far more encompassing. Thusly gravity is a theory as well as evolution.
Wilful militant ignorance placemarker.
More reasons why they don't want to fund ID, and why it doesn't belong in science class, as deduced by the court:
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 89 of 139
as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
Dover will be seen in time as ID's Waterloo.
"Find me any competent scientist who doesn't believe in gravity. I'll be waiting."
Gravity is a force. It exists. Everyone believes that gravity exists. That isn't even a question.
Within limits, some mathematical formulae can be used to predict gravitational effects. The ones Newton came up with work OK, but only from the frame of reference of this planet. Once you head out into the universe, gravity behaves much differently.
The question, mlcnnnn, is how does gravity work? You know, we have no real explanation for it. The theory of gravity has changed drastically since Newton. Yet, we still don't know exactly why gravity works as it does. There are hypotheses about it, and research is ongoing.
So, there's lots of disagreement about the theory of gravity. Gravity's effects, like evolution, are facts. They happen. Why and how...well, that's all still under study, and probably will be long past our lifetimes.
Bad example, mlcnnnn.
"There is no good evidence he died as a result of the leeches. Most likely pneumonia."
Well, they didn't actually use leeches on Washington, anyhow. They bled him by opening a vein.
I don't "believe" in gravity. I don't have to "believe". I can measure it. However, gravitational theory can and will be revised as new data is uncovered/discovered.
This is different than a "belief" system.
My parents could afford private schools for their kids -- on a sailor's salary. It's all a matter of priorities. You may have to do without a few luxuries, but it can be done.
I suppose it would be unscientific to assert that you exist either since there are NO peer-reviewed articles stating as much. Or are there? Certainly the rest of the world should not take your existence as a scientifically viable assertion on that account alone, right? No peer-reviewed article = no evidence = no science. Right?
The law is still the law.
"You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead."
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.