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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Why should teachers be urged to offer reasons that the theory may not be true when such reasons don't exist?
"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.
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."
According to Mark Twain, they all must have been real sick from the parasites they had to be host to.
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?
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.
"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?
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.
In other words, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
GMTA! :-)
Re: #379
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?
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.
Okay. Since it's easy enough to prove, please be my guest. Prove it.
On this, I will defer to folks more qualified to answer you.
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.