A little bony, I'll admit, but some of us like bones.
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.
I see. So the Intelligent part of Inteligent Design is merely a figment of my imagination.
I agree it is not explicitly Christian, but it is explicitly religious. Only a god can be the designer. If the designer arose by abiogenesis and evolution, no matter where that happened, then the designer could not be intelligent, by definition.
It's obvious.
Blue detects Christian Godliness and pink indicates Satan (or at least Helen Gahagan Douglas).
Actually, science consistently and routinely finds that the effect of supernatural entities on the workings of the natural universe are indistinguishable from those of a phenomenon that doesn't exist. What science is unable to address is whether any supernatural entities exist nonetheless..
Though I am a Christian and do believe that the God of the Bible created the universe, ID makes no such assumption that a god created the world. As I understand the theory it could literally be anything - aliens from outer space or a time traveling band of intergalactic space hippies. I am being facetious, but you get the point.
Also: :-)
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GravWaves.html
And finally here was another fun thread where we argued the speed of gravity.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177535/posts?page=1,50
However, direct scientific evidence for the post abiogenesis simple single-celled, primordial soup-living organism evolving into the complex and diverse life that we are able to observe today does not exist...But the evolutionary faith of it does, including alleged mutations (like HOX gene mutations) and feathered dinosaurs (like Sinosauropteryx), and so forth.
I continue to think it a directly relevant question, and a good one. But I usually get no response. Your waffling answer, although unhelpful, is by far the best.
The (I think obvious) fact is that there is wild and universal inconsistency on the part of those who claim evolution is atheistic.
The reasons given (when reasons are given) for claiming that evolution is atheistic are never particular to evolutionary theory, and in nearly all cases are general to scientific theories as such.
Although I've studied the popular Darwinian controversies in some detail, I've never really figured out to my entire satisfaction what it's really about, so I keep asking the questions.
At least Joseph Smith had the decency to wait until they were 14 years old.
Thanks for your post!
In my opinion, even if you do not believe that Torasco v. Watkins provides the necessary legal weight, given your posted definitions and the Secular Humanism website that I cited, you would have to agree that Secular Humanism meets the definition of religion.
You would have to also agree that the beliefs of the Secular Humanists sound an awful lot like many evo posters from Darwin Central...And their beliefs go way beyond science (into faith and religion).
Yet the scientist who says such a thing is sawing off the very branch on which he himself sits.
And his partner's name wasn't Bring'em Young for nothing. ;-)
Thanks Gumlegs...But the women of Darwin Central are not for me. I am happily married.
With their resemblance to Lucy, I understand why they are all covered up.
Thanks Gumlegs...But the women of Darwin Central are not for me. I am happily married.
With their resemblance to Lucy, I understand why they are all covered up.
A little bony, I'll admit, but some of us like bones.
The colleges and high schools are glutted with leftist adminisrations in America, only things kind to socialism are permitted.. in ANY "science".. Like Marxism.. and other materialist scewed views.. scientific materialism is only one facet of it..
You have to admit... She is much better looking in the artist renderings.
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.