Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bow2thestate; commonsenseprevails; creationisminadress; creationisthisseyfit; crevolist; dover; downwithgod; elitism; fundiemeltdown; goddooditamen; godlesslefties; nogod4du; victory4thelefties; weknowbest4you
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: thomaswest

I thought by "X-rays" you meant the medical application. Either type of X-ray is designed, intelligible, useful, and behaves according to predictable laws. Either can comfortably be considered a product of intelligent design and thus further studied by science.


351 posted on 01/04/2006 4:37:40 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

Comment #352 Removed by Moderator

To: thomaswest

Granted, faith in God is indeed faith and therefore the reasoning may be considered circular, but no more nor less so than for naturalism. As in, "God doesn't exist, yet here we are, so we must have evolved through some process which God had nothing to do with."


353 posted on 01/04/2006 5:39:48 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I noticed you did not answer me about the law of gravity. Does that mean you understood what I was driving at?


354 posted on 01/04/2006 5:48:42 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

I never understand what you are driving at - LOL. But I assume you mean there are different types of gravity but you don't deny gravity exists.


355 posted on 01/04/2006 5:56:46 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

What difference does it make which God we're talking about? If I were suggesting that we teach kids specifically in the public schools that Allah from the Koran or Yahweh from the Old Testament, or Zeus or Kali created the universe you'd have a point. All I'm suggesting is that science remain open to the possibility that the billions of people who believe there's more to life than natural processes which work simply of their own accord not be dismissed on a tautological technicality (i.e., "We've defined science in such a way as to exclude the possibility of the supernatural, therefore only purely naturalistic explanations for our origins and development are potentially true").

You're correct, science can't test the supernatural, so therefore it can neither determine nor disprove its existence. So it should not operate on the sole assumption that it doesn't exist.

I could understand you fellows getting upset if Christians were demanding that a big chunk of science education be composed of religious teaching. But all that's usually asked for is a simple suggestion that maybe there is a God and maybe He had something to do with all this, or as in Georgia a sticker asking kids to keep an open mind. The hysteria that erupts over such usually modest requests is what leads many of us to think there's an agenda behind what you're doing.


356 posted on 01/04/2006 5:57:49 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; thomaswest
Either type of X-ray is designed, intelligible, useful, and behaves according to predictable laws. Either can comfortably be considered a product of intelligent design and thus further studied by science.

Huh? An X-ray is an electromagnetic wave along with; Visible light, IR, radio, microwave, gamma, etc (the electromagnetic spectrum). The only difference is the wavelength, which directly corresponds to the energy being transported. BTW, the higher the wavelength, the higher the energy. See:

http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/pictures/emspec.gif

and:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html#c2

357 posted on 01/04/2006 6:09:36 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; Ichneumon; longshadow; CarolinaGuitarman; Thatcherite; Coyoteman; js1138; Junior; ...
ID is electoral death!

Rehm takes Dover seat by 68 votes.

358 posted on 01/04/2006 6:14:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: All
From the Rehm article:

"Rehm, who was one of 11 plaintiffs in the intelligent design trial ..."

359 posted on 01/04/2006 6:16:22 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Thanks for the brief expose. The electromagnetic spectrum may easily be considered a product of intelligent design.


360 posted on 01/04/2006 6:23:06 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Sounds to me like a close election where one side (the agitated one) got its voters out to the polls and lopsided liberal media coverage did the rest. However, I'm willing to abide by the will of the voters on this issue. Are you? Not just in this election, but in any others that may occur, including those where the other side wins?


361 posted on 01/04/2006 6:24:59 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Was that a repeat?

Unfortunately, yes.

Whenever people try to redefine the word "Theory" that list has to be dragged out.

Shame that I have to do it, but words mean things.

362 posted on 01/04/2006 6:25:48 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
In fact, ID has never contributed anything positive. It's all negative--"Evilution" has "flaws"--therefore ID must be right.

Kind of like Howard Dean's leadership of the Democratic Party -- the Republicans are wrong, therefore we are right (without having to present any actual arguments for our program).

363 posted on 01/04/2006 6:26:21 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I never understand what you are driving at - LOL. But I assume you mean there are different types of gravity but you don't deny gravity exists.

Hmmm.. First my apologies for not being more clear on this. Lets see....

Newton came up with a mathematical formula that described a falling object or a planet in orbit around the Sun, etc. We call this force Gravity.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

"Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."

F=Gm1m2/r2

Where:

F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model (Law of Gravity). However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

364 posted on 01/04/2006 6:27:24 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

You're always clear, Radio Astronomer, it's just that your expertise on matters such as gravity is far above that of most of us!


365 posted on 01/04/2006 6:29:27 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Conservatives want the local community to decide what is or isn't useless bunk.

It takes a village?

366 posted on 01/04/2006 6:30:23 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
product of intelligent design.

But this concept is not science and should not be in a science class.

367 posted on 01/04/2006 6:30:54 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: puroresu; mlc9852

Thank you for the complement. :-)

Hope the above was a bit more understandable!


368 posted on 01/04/2006 6:32:57 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Yet simply stated - what goes up must come down. Please don't make this more complicated than necessary. We all know gravity exists. We may not be able to explain it, but we certainly can verify it. Not so with TOE (of course no one is arguing adaptation of species). But as I've often said, no one's mind will be changed on FR. We have believers on both sides of the argument who, come hell or high water, aren't about to change their beliefs.

Hope you and your family had a wonder Christmas and a Happy New Year.


369 posted on 01/04/2006 6:34:15 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
One thing that mjst be understood is that intelligent design is NOT Christianity. It names no specific deity, whether Jehovah or anyone else. It is, at best, agnostic. A Christian might apply it, but when he discusses special creation he has gone beyond intelligent design as I understand it.

Actually, it is Christianity. It just won't mention that fact since they're trying to get it into schools, and they know that coming out honestly will prevent that. So they use fuzzy, vague terms. But make no mistake - the promoters of this political agenda are indeed Christian, and it is an attempt to get their faith in science classes.

370 posted on 01/04/2006 6:35:33 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: highball

I guess then the IDers would have no problem if we said Mohammed was the 'Designer', since it is sect neutral, huh.


371 posted on 01/04/2006 6:38:51 AM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
But this concept is not science and should not be in a science class.

Prove it.

372 posted on 01/04/2006 6:40:31 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Yet simply stated - what goes up must come down.

Hmmmm... (Well no - escape velocity comes to mind :-)) LOL!

However, that is not what I was driving at.

Let us try a different tack:

The Law of Gravity is wrong! Gravitational Theory is "more correct". However, it will continue to be refined as new evidence comes to light.

This is no different than the Theory of Evolution.

What I am driving at is even though something may be called a Law, it does not mean it is the "end all". In all actuality a theory in science is the "highest level" we can obtain.

No matter how much evidence is produced (such as dropping a brick on your foot), a theory will always remain a theory.

373 posted on 01/04/2006 6:45:18 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Junior; highball
Poking at evolution does not constitute POSITIVE evidence for ID.

Maybe not, but it does indicate questions and possible weaknesses in the theory of evolution. These questions will not be allowed in the public school classroom. This is because, at bottom, evolutionists have just as much of a personal stake in this as creationists do. Evolution has been the philosophical presupposition of Western society for the last century. It is much more than a scientific theory, it is a philosophical touchstone of reason for its adherents. That is why no other competing ideas are allowed. I have no faith that the evolutionists will ever claim that ID, creationism, or any other idea has the merit of a "theory" and should be taught in the classroom.

374 posted on 01/04/2006 6:45:41 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

If people have been that rude or hateful to you, you should know that this is not the example of Christ. Christ himself would not be rude to you. Just wanted to let you know. - Zack.


375 posted on 01/04/2006 6:47:16 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Maybe not, but it does indicate questions and possible weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Not really. The so-called "holes" in evolution do not bear up under scrutiny; indeed from the many posts on these threads over the past seven years detailing these "holes" it becomes readily apparent that your average ID advocate has a woeful lack of knowledge when it comes to the theory of evolution.

However, if you're game, go ahead and post what you believe to be the problems with evolution. You might be surprised at the avalanche of information your post will generate.

376 posted on 01/04/2006 6:48:58 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: pby
I, too, am happily married. Here's a courtly tip of the topper to our better halves.

The ritual honors having been duly rendered, what's wrong with Lucy?


377 posted on 01/04/2006 6:48:59 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen; Junior
but it does indicate questions and possible weaknesses in the theory of evolution. These questions will not be allowed in the public school classroom.

Nonsense. Flat out nonsense.

The weaknesses are discussed in science classes. The problem for IDers is that the strengths of the theory vastly outweight the possible questions.

I have no faith that the evolutionists will ever claim that ID, creationism, or any other idea has the merit of a "theory" and should be taught in the classroom.

It's not a matter of ID being handed the title "theory." It's a matter of ID's proponents being unable to fulfill the most basic requirements for the term.

378 posted on 01/04/2006 6:51:14 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Prove it.

No. You should provide evidence how ID falls in the realm of science and thusly should be included in science class.

379 posted on 01/04/2006 6:51:41 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Yes, but ultimately gravity itself isn't understandable in terms of its whys and wherefores. We can observe gravity's effects and catalogue them, but we still have no idea where such a force came from. Does it simply exist or did God design it to operate as it does?

Yet, even on a matter such as gravity, most Christians don't request that God be specifically credited with establishing gravity in school curricula. We understand, more than some of the evolutionists here may think, what science is and what its limitations are.

But gravity is generally not used to bash people of faith. Darwinism often is. Go to a militant atheist political site and you'll find that they're selling Darwin fish stickers, T-shirts, etc. Look at all the evolutionist scientists who have had second careers as secularist ideological activists (Gould, Huxley, and even Hawking to an extent).

One of the most important principles of the faith of millions of Americans is our personal relationship with God, knowing that we were created in His image. We can't know how He did it, and 99.9% of the time we have no problem with science noting how things work, even though that notation is often theoretical and this year's hot theories may be tomorrow's discarded ones.

But given the tendency of evolutionary theory to be used as a battering ram against our faith, notwithstanding that it's a theory and like any theory it could be wrong and could even be discarded by science itself someday, we do on occasion ask that our kids be reminded that there could be more to human life than naturalistic processes.

That doesn't seem like too much to ask, especially considering that facets of natural selection (possible gender, racial, or group differences, as an example) are routinely left out of school curricula to satisfy PC group demands.


380 posted on 01/04/2006 6:52:55 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I am not intimately familiar with ID and am not a biologist. What I am here to argue, however, is that ID is not explicitly Christian (I myself am somewhat wary of it because it does not name a deity), and evolution is not just a scientific theory but quickly became a philosophical foundation that today is indoctrinated in the public schools. Many of those in the evolutionist camp will brook no compromise with this philosophy, and will allow no questioning of this theory in the public schools.


381 posted on 01/04/2006 6:56:06 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: highball
The weaknesses are discussed in science classes.

Perhaps things have changed since I was in school. Please tell me where the theory of evolution is vigorously questioned and where teachers are urged to offer their students sound reasons for why the theory of evolution may in fact not be true, and why.

When I was in school I recall absolutely no questioning of evolution in any textbook I ever read. I recall one teacher, obviously a Christian, stating that she did not agree with it but relating that she had no choice but to teach it. I was absolutely shocked to discover, years later, that anyone ever questioned the origins of man as anything other than time plus chance.

382 posted on 01/04/2006 7:00:06 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

It's from one of those tasteless jokes back in the Ethiopian famine days.

What has the measurements 16-16-16. An Ethiopian Beauty Queen.

OR.

What's the fastest thing in the world? An Ethiopian chicken.

etc., etc.


383 posted on 01/04/2006 7:03:54 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

In what way is evolution "indoctrinated" in public schools? I learned evolution in a Catholic school biology course and we used the same texts as every other school in the area. I don't recall any "indoctrination." Please provide some examples.


384 posted on 01/04/2006 7:10:41 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Please tell me where the theory of evolution is vigorously questioned and where teachers are urged to offer their students sound reasons for why the theory of evolution may in fact not be true, and why.

Why should teachers be urged to offer reasons that the theory may not be true when such reasons don't exist?

385 posted on 01/04/2006 7:11:33 AM PST by Quark2005 (Divination is NOT science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Also,

New Board Rescinds ID policy.


386 posted on 01/04/2006 7:12:35 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

"Please tell me where the theory of evolution is vigorously questioned and where teachers are urged to offer their students sound reasons for why the theory of evolution may in fact not be true, and why."

What sound reasons? And when do teachers ever discuss any problems with the current theory of gravity? Or Newton's theory?

"I was absolutely shocked to discover, years later, that anyone ever questioned the origins of man as anything other than time plus chance."

Natural selection is not a random process.


387 posted on 01/04/2006 7:12:57 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
But given the tendency of evolutionary theory to be used as a battering ram against our faith

You know, I keep hearing this, but I can find very little evidence of it. Sure, there's the occasional biologist who ventures into the realm of unsupported philosophical musing, but they're acually rather rare, and their musings must be actively sought out to be found at all.

It seems to me that creationists are the ones who are loudly proclaiming that evolution is a threat -- and that they use evolution as just one of their rhetorical tools to wrap themselves in their deeply coveted robe of "persecution."

388 posted on 01/04/2006 7:14:00 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

According to Mark Twain, they all must have been real sick from the parasites they had to be host to.


389 posted on 01/04/2006 7:15:33 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Yes, but ultimately gravity itself isn't understandable in terms of its whys and wherefores. We can observe gravity's effects and catalogue them, but we still have no idea where such a force came from. Does it simply exist or did God design it to operate as it does?

I disagree. We may end up with a real understanding of gravity in the end. However, the concept of God can never be described by science and thusly remains firmly in the realm of faith. This, by definition, should not allow God into the science class.

Yet, even on a matter such as gravity, most Christians don't request that God be specifically credited with establishing gravity in school curricula. We understand, more than some of the evolutionists here may think, what science is and what its limitations are.

Good to hear.

But gravity is generally not used to bash people of faith. Darwinism often is.

The theory of evolution does not address a deity in any way shape or form. Just because some folks use it to bash a religion, makes it no less a theory in science. Should we bash Christianity because some nutball like Jim Jones caused a mass murder/suicide of 914 people?

Of course not!!

One of the most important principles of the faith of millions of Americans is our personal relationship with God, knowing that we were created in His image. We can't know how He did it,

And evolution does not address this

and 99.9% of the time we have no problem with science noting how things work, even though that notation is often theoretical and this year's hot theories may be tomorrow's discarded ones.

Theories in science do not come and go like this. For a theory to become such, much evidence is needed which would not be "discarded" lightly. BTW, I am certainly not advocating parts cannot be revised as new evidence comes to light or even discarding the whole thing should such evidence be uncovered. However, after 150 years of study by so many disciplines, the theory of evolution is more rock solid than the theory of gravity.

But given the tendency of evolutionary theory to be used as a battering ram against our faith, notwithstanding that it's a theory and like any theory it could be wrong and could even be discarded by science itself someday, we do on occasion ask that our kids be reminded that there could be more to human life than naturalistic processes.

This is being done every day in churches across the land. However, it is not science and should not belong in the science class.

That doesn't seem like too much to ask

But it is. How would a belief system be included into science class? Which belief? By local community?

390 posted on 01/04/2006 7:19:47 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Well, I guess that completes that. Can Thomas More appeal this thing without the Board's consent? Doesn't make sense to me, but a lot of legal things don't make sense to me. Where's the real test that will go all the way come from? Kansas? Seems unlikely to me. Somewhere out there a "tighter" test case is brewing right now.

After a few more losses, the DI will change course again and we'll start all over again.


391 posted on 01/04/2006 7:20:15 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
"Perhaps things have changed since I was in school. Please tell me where the theory of evolution is vigorously questioned and where teachers are urged to offer their students sound reasons for why the theory of evolution may in fact not be true, and why."

Well, you're the one who originally made the silly assertion that "questions will not be allowed in the public school classroom." I suggest that you support that statement if you can.

I don't know when you were in school, but in the 1980s, my biology teacher explained how evolution could possibly be falsified. He explained the gaps in the fossil record, what we expect to find in the future, and what it would mean for the ToE if something else was found.

The problem with your position is that there aren't "sound reasons for why the theory of evolution may in fact not be true". Not scientific ones, anyway.

The ToE has been thoroughly and vigorously tested for centuries, and been supported in every single instance. There is at least as much evidence supporting it as supports the Germ Theory of Disease - do you have a personal objection to that one as well?

392 posted on 01/04/2006 7:32:51 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Can Thomas More appeal this thing without the Board's consent?

No. There may be additional matters, however, like assessing legal fees against the school board. And it's possible -- but probably unlikely -- that some individuals may have liability here. There is also the likelihood of some kind of retaliation against the Thomas More people for stirring up this mess. But it's probably over. The school board may just pay the bills, and the Thomas More folks will live to fight another day.

393 posted on 01/04/2006 7:34:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You can't prove a negative. ID proponents however should prove their ideas deserve to be in a science class.

In other words, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

394 posted on 01/04/2006 7:35:42 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Junior

GMTA! :-)

Re: #379


395 posted on 01/04/2006 7:39:05 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; atlaw

Is there scientific evidence that there are gender differences in mental ability? For example, that men are on average better at math and spacial conceptualization than women? And that in the areas of highest ability in those areas, that males overwhelmingly dominate?


396 posted on 01/04/2006 7:40:53 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Junior; RadioAstronomer
You can't prove a negative.

Gee. I guess that leaves the assertion that "ID is not science" as an open question then, doesn't it?

397 posted on 01/04/2006 7:44:30 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Gee. I guess that leaves the assertion that "ID is not science" as an open question then, doesn't it?

Cute, but hardly.

The real assertion in that case is "ID fails to meet the basic requirements of scientific inquiry", which is easy enough to prove. One need only the sworn testimony of its own proponent, Dr. Behe.

398 posted on 01/04/2006 7:47:46 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: highball
"ID fails to meet the basic requirements of scientific inquiry", which is easy enough to prove.

Okay. Since it's easy enough to prove, please be my guest. Prove it.

399 posted on 01/04/2006 7:49:51 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: puroresu; Ichneumon; Coyoteman; CarolinaGuitarman; Right Wing Professor; furball4paws; VadeRetro; ..
Is there scientific evidence that there are gender differences in mental ability? For example, that men are on average better at math and spacial conceptualization than women? And that in the areas of highest ability in those areas, that males overwhelmingly dominate?

On this, I will defer to folks more qualified to answer you.

400 posted on 01/04/2006 7:54:05 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,051-1,070 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson