"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of the science?" 
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.
Then they should be teaching science and stop wasting time on the theory of evolution.
Not necessarily. Please understand that to undertake science either theistic-ally or atheistically does not require the intrusion of presuppositions at every point. If you ask me, this whole controversy is way overblown. Good science can take place with various presuppositions.
The case you mention here may see benefits without regard to either presupposition, namely creationism or evolutionism. The reason few people complain about the science of embryology is that it treats of a highly specified process within a limited range of observation.
Science is the search for knowledge. Or at least it used to be.
"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of the science?"
"Science is the search for knowledge."
About the natural world.
That reply rates "John Kerry" on the "clarity/nuance" scale.
I'm not wise - just stating my opinion, like everyone else here.
Xrays are photons, no magic there.
Teaching evolution is teaching religion, in my view.
Suppose for the sake of argument that A) God exists and B) the theory of evolution is correct. Would it be appropriate in science class in a public school to suggest that God caused evolution to occur? Or would it be mandatory that evolution be described as happening due to totally natural processes which God had nothing to do with, and which would have occurred exactly the same way whether God exists or not?
This is hypothetical, as noted.
Scientia means knowledge, not nature. I'm well aware of the limits science has placed on the search for knowledge however.
No. Your mistake is in assuming that natural law is necessarily atheistic. It is not. Natural law is evidence of intelligent design because it behaves regularly and consistently. But when "natural" is defined as necessarily excluding God, then it is simply an arbitrary application of the word "natural." Put another way, "natural law" may be considered a created thing from which science may assume an intelligent designer and then proceed.
For someone who is averse to the notion of intelligent design natural law ought to be considered supernatural, because the opposite of intelligent design would produce, if anything, no intelligible law(s), let alone intelligbile matter for law(s) to govern.
I have made the point on this thread that the theory of evolution contains faith-based beliefs (see previous posts relative to HOX gene mutations and feathered dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx).
One can not construct an evolutionary model that takes a simple single-celled organism from a primordial soup to all the complexity and diversity observeable today without faith (belief in something for which there is no evidence).
It also takes faith to believe in any scientific "theory" associated with abiogenesis...specifically that it was only a natural event (unless, like Dr. Crick, you are a proponent of aliens as the cause, which also takes faith).
As for religion/philosophy...see Humanism, Naturalism and Materialism. The stated beliefs of these religions/philosophies are espoused all the time in what poses as science (especially around here...just look at some of the previous posts).
The basis for Materialist philosophy is matter in motion, with all things being explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry.
Secular Humanism (a religion as noted by the Supreme Court, Torasco v. Watkins) believes the following:
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understandings of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
(Source: webpage for the Council of Secular Humanism)
It should sound familiar...These religous statements of belief are verbalized/preached in an on-going basis in connection with the TOE (again, especially around here).
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
I think I would modify that to "objective knowledge".
"I think I would modify that to "objective knowledge"."
Agreed. :)
Ask a "John Kerry" question, get a "John Kerry" answer.
Zack, I see this pathetic thing tossed out often on these threads. Other than some space alien, which begs the question, what are the possibilities for the designer?
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.