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.
"Wrong. We draw subjective conclusions and inferences from objective evidence."
No, we arrive at objective evidence by subjecting the evidence to testability and repeatability.
"Wrong. Inferences cannot be made apart from human assumptions and limitations."
Inferences can be tested and these tests repeated. They can be made objective.
"Yes, I chose ID subjectively because it is what best fits the objective evidence. Get it?"
Yes. You are incredibly confused. :)
But surely scientists take sides in debates over competing theories. Why would that be wrong? Merely to do research on one theory and not the other would be a subjective decision. Humans can't help being subjective to an extent.
The thing is, a scientist could deliver a purely objective discourse on nature, and then conclude it by subjectively stating that his observations have led him to conclude that nature is all that exists and there is no God, and it wouldn't raise many eyebrows. But a scientist who followed a similar objective discourse with a statement of faith ("My observations of the workings of nature have strengthened my belief in a deity") would likely become marginalized in the scientific community.
My New Year's resolution is to stop feeding trolls. Seems you learned that lesson a long time ago.
Not true.. the Godometer is called your spirit.. your human spirit.. Your spirit is one thing your body is another.. Scientific Godology studies God thru spiritual dialog with that Spirit(God).. The body is just a machine.. an organitic machine.. The spirit is what life IS.. when the spirit leaves the body dies.. Only the body dies, the spirit lives on.. someplace else.. When the body is spiritually untenable the spirit leaves..
Scientific Godology studies universal reality, Carnal(body) science studies merely third dimensional reality.. which is part of universal reality but only a part.. Seek to know your Godometer and then you can really begin a scientific study of things that are real.. Until then, you are a machine, like a computer, trying to make sense of things beyond the machines ability to grasp..
I was a computer programmer back when there were few computer programmers(1967).. Computers are still only as smart as the programmer(s) is/are.. Machines know nothing.. and carnal knowledge is much ado about nothing.. At least consider it.. The Sheep must be separated from the goats.. (spiritual from the carnal) and the plan is working brillantly..
"But surely scientists take sides in debates over competing theories. Why would that be wrong? Merely to do research on one theory and not the other would be a subjective decision. Humans can't help being subjective to an extent."
To an extent, surely. But the standard is still objectivity over subjectivity.
"The thing is, a scientist could deliver a purely objective discourse on nature, and then conclude it by subjectively stating that his observations have led him to conclude that nature is all that exists and there is no God, and it wouldn't raise many eyebrows."
I think it would, if it was presented in a scientific journal for instance.
"But a scientist who followed a similar objective discourse with a statement of faith ("My observations of the workings of nature have strengthened my belief in a deity") would likely become marginalized in the scientific community."
Not if their research is not predicated on their extra-scientific beliefs. Kenneth R. Miller for instance is a well known Catholic evolutionary biologist.
I see.. you gotta be whom you are.. I have no problem with that..
No bleating from you then.. thats as it should be..
What a plan.. Is God COOL or What?...
God has revealed Himself in many ways: in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Scripture, in Creation (heaven and earth, spiritual and physical).
I expect Scripture and Creation to agree and I have never been disappointed.
IMHO, those who become disappointed have mis-interpreted something or, worse, have put their personal doctrinal template over their Spiritual eyes/ears. The most logical cause of a conflict is mortal interpretation - doctrine or tradition of men (Mark 7:7) or a misunderstanding of science/math/philosophy.
Spiritual Truth is hidden in plain view. Christ spoke in parables - tiny myths - to reveal truth so that only those who had "ears to hear" would.
Likewise the Scriptures are just text on paper to many - but to those in whom the Spirit dwells, the Truth is brought alive within. Without that first, direct Spiritual revelation that "Jesus Christ is Lord" - one cannot hear or see. It is the "Rosetta stone" for Truth.
As hosepipe would say, is God cool or what?
But basically the thought put forward was science can't be allowed to shed new light on what are long held scriptural beliefs.
True.. without that epiphany, truth is hieroglyphics..
i.e. pretty pictures, pictogram's, theory.. even opinion or qualia..
But with the Rosetta stone, the conversation becomes transcendent of time.. truth becomes knowable and doable.. Because if "its" true.. it was true, then, as well as now.. else its not true at all.. Theory is not truth, theory is merely the Question asked.. The truth is an/the answer to the question.. i.e. What is gravity?... Nobody knows.. We just know that it is..
Nope. The evidence is objective to begin with. We do our best to objectively test it, and repeat those tests. From those tests we draw subjective conclusions and inferences. Subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the human observer. That does not mean human observers are unscientific.
"The evidence is objective to begin with."
The only way we can arrive at objective evidence is by testing the evidence. The only way we can know if something is objective is by having more than one person examine it.
"We do our best to objectively test it, and repeat those tests. From those tests we draw subjective conclusions and inferences."
No, YOU draw subjective inferences. Scientists draw objective ones.
"Subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the human observer."
That doesn't mean objectivity can't exist in our decisions. You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science. This is nonsense.
You're making a circular argument. The evidence is objective, and it can even be objectively tested on a repeated basis. But the inferences and conclusions made by the observer on the basis of those tests depends upon the biases and assumptions of the observer. Those biases ands assumptions are subjective. They are created by the observer, not by the evidence. The evidence does not change itself or make assumptions about itself. The one observing the evidence does.
You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science.
This is nonsense.
" You're making a circular argument. The evidence is objective, and it can even be objectively tested on a repeated basis."
No, I am saying we have no way to know if the evidence is objective until it is tested. Basic epistemology.
"But the inferences and conclusions made by the observer on the basis of those tests depends upon the biases and assumptions of the observer."
No, exactly wrong. It depends on the objective evidence that is gathered.
"This is nonsense."
Yes, it IS nonsense. That anybody would think that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims is illogical. Yet, you do.
Indeed, Truth is timeless and transcendent and thus can only come from God. It cannot be perceived by reasoning alone because of the observer problem - we are part of what we seek to observe.
BS. I have objective evidence that you exist right before my eyes. It is self-evident, and it does not have to be "tested" first to be objective.
That anybody would think that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims is illogical.
It is not "illogical." It is a simple statement that may be true or false; reasonable or unreasonable. In this case it is unreasonable, and for that reason I have not made such a statement. I have never believed subjectivity to be the "basis of all knowledge." I have claimed, and continue to maintain, that science cannot entirely divest itself of subjectivity any more than it can entirely divest itself of human observers.
I have noticed that in my dreams I am the observer, the players even the one playing ME(if present) are players, actors.. but I am the observer watching a play, a skit.. When the observer(me) trys to participate, I wake up.. every time..
The human body needs sleep, the human spirit does not.. Could be that dreams are merely something to keep the human spirit busy while the body sleeps.. else what is the purpose of dreams.. Why would a human spirit need rest.?.
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.