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 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
To: PatrickHenry

"The only flame you'll get from me, BB, is because of my ever-growing cyber passion for you."

Down, boy! [grin]


421 posted on 01/04/2006 8:49:34 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
The crux of this trial was not the merits of Darwinism or my belief that a Creator is behind the origins of the universe. The crux of the trial in reality was discern whether this was an effort to insert a Trojan Horse, devoid to any reference to God, using weasel words hide it's intentions, to somehow break open and introduce God and Christianity into the classroom.

Even the Discovery Institute has essentially used that as their template for success. Their wedge strategy has basically outlined their tactics on how to advance this.

I've always been suspicious that fundamental and evangelical Christians have embraced the Intelligent Design argument since it never mentions specifically God as the Creator. Usually when any "watering down" and not calling God a God occurs, these groups simply will not tolerate it. Yet, for the last 10 years or so, they have endorsed something they normally and rightfully would reject.

This whole thing is based on a lie to gain acceptance. Even the parties in the suit were cited for lying (perjury perhaps) during the case process. Those of faith are reduced to advancing a lie? The ends justify the means? Are we proud of that?

Science and scripture won't always line up. Those who wrote and recorded what has now become scripture often had little understanding. Most if not all could ot fathom a round world when in fact it was widely understood that there were indeed 4 corners to our earth, or the Sun rotated around the earth.

I frankly have no problem with the differences of the origin of man being discussed in school. As a Christian, I do have faith that in some shape or form God had his hand in all this.

But to create a Trojan Horse and then lie about it.........

422 posted on 01/04/2006 8:50:24 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: knowledgeforfreedom
Quite different, in that a human can be observed and God can not.

The force of gravity cannot be directly observed either. It must be unscientific. Can science "falsify" the force of gravity?

423 posted on 01/04/2006 8:54:06 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
(And I do think everyone will eventually "get it".)

That would be nice! :^)

Thanks, A-G!

424 posted on 01/04/2006 8:56:10 AM PST by betty boop (Dominus illuminatio mea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"The force of gravity cannot be directly observed either."

He didn't say *directly*; he said observed. God can't be observed directly OR indirectly. Gravity can be observed indirectly.


425 posted on 01/04/2006 8:57:30 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

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

There are measurable basic cognitive differences on many levels between genders, and physical structural differences in the brain to match the measured cognitive differences. The more we know, the more differences we are finding, and the "runtime" behavior of the brain between genders is also very different, something that we've only been able to observe recently thanks to better technology. While there is still a lot of heat being generated by the "social justice" crowd, major advances in cognitive science and neurophysiology in the last decade have generated an overwhelming amount of evidence for what everyone has always known but which until recently was academic suicide: male and female brains are significantly different. There simply is so much evidence for it now that it has overcome the social bias against this idea -- science subverting ideology.

At least one assertion that was made is true: males have measurably better spatial processing ability and there are structural reasons to support why this is. Roughly speaking, the a high sigma female ability in this domain is the same as the average male ability, and there are essentially no females with above average spatial abilities if males are used as the standard. The simple reason this appears to be is that men are naturally packing far more of this hardware than women (and less of other hardware).

There are other differences between genders in how problems are partitioned. Women tend to multitask automatically, whereas men focus on single issues, allowing women to outperform men in a modest interrupt environment. However, men outperform women in a high-interrupt environment because while the interrupts will overwhelm the handling ability of the female brain, men automatically partition and prioritize interrupts so that they are only focusing on one no matter what the interrupt load. There is evidence of this in military studies of how men and women handle various threat environments. Women can outperform men when faced with a very small number of threats, but that performance degrades rapidly (below that of men) as the number of threats increases.

Another relevant point, that I have not mentioned, is that the distribution of intelligence of genders is different. While average males and average females have the same level of intelligence generally, the distribution of male intelligence is significantly wider than that of females. That means that most of the imbeciles and most of the geniuses are men. Since intelligence is a strong correlating factor in many social outcomes, this will bias the gender balance for many high visibility roles.

While there are some basic gender differences that show up in average men and women (e.g. spatial ability, multi-tasking ability, etc) that have structural correlations, there are no real differences in general intelligence. However, once you head north of one sigma the population becomes increasingly male. No one seems to care that most of the stupid people are male such that the entire female population is more intelligent, but the idea that most of the really brilliant people are male as well really does not sit well with many ideologues even though it is measurable and appears to be the case anecdotally.

426 posted on 01/04/2006 8:59:42 AM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The force of gravity cannot be directly observed either.

Gravity's effect on matter can be conclusively measured. It can be tested, and will repeatedly work in the same fashion under the same conditions. It is bound by physical laws.

Can you say the same about God?

427 posted on 01/04/2006 9:02:10 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 423 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What, the lovely Kathy isn't enough for you?


428 posted on 01/04/2006 9:02:54 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: doc30
I'm not anti-science at all but keep saying it if it makes you feel superior.
429 posted on 01/04/2006 9:03:17 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
God can't be observed directly OR indirectly.

You make a positive statement that cannot be proven. Not very "scientific" of you.

430 posted on 01/04/2006 9:03:26 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

Comment #431 Removed by Moderator

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Is the discussion of the possibility of parallel universes off limits in science class?


432 posted on 01/04/2006 9:05:43 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Special Relativity implies that gravity, like everything else, is limited by the speed of light.

I've heard this, too, and not being a physicist, I do have one comment. How can the propagation of gravity be measured? I mean, since the beginning of the universe, all matter would be exerting some kind of gravitational force on all other matter. As the universe expanded, and matter became heterogeneously dispersed, the same gravitational forces would still be present, but their magnitudes would be different. Since, according to relativity, matter cannot move faster than c, then could there be a way to test if it propagates faster than c? Could you have a mass osscilating in space and measure the effect of its gravity at some distance? Then modulate that oscillation and then measure a) the time to notice the oscillation at the point of measurement and/or measure the phase shift of the oscillation at the point of measurement? Just thinking oout loud.

433 posted on 01/04/2006 9:10:10 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
What difference does it make which God we're talking about?

Method and motive. Whether or not a single deity should be considered or if multiple are allowed into the mix.

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").

That's not how science is defined. Religious assumptions are not dismissed as "false", they're simply not claims that can be considered with the scientific method. Science can give no answers that rely upon supernatural explanations or assumptions. That's not the same as saying that such explanations or assumptions are false.

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.

Science does not operate on such an assumption. It simply cannot address the supernatural. If there ever is an observable event that has a supernatural cause, science will never be able to give an explanation for it. That doesn't mean that it has no cause it all, it simply means that the cause lies outside of the realm of science.

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,

But that isn't science. It isn't a scientific consideration and is fundamentally worthless to scientific inquiry. Believing it is fine, but trying to push that view as though it has any relevance to science is lying.
434 posted on 01/04/2006 9:13:38 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: doc30
How can the propagation of gravity be measured?

We've had threads on this: First speed of gravity measurement revealed .

435 posted on 01/04/2006 9:14:44 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: highball
Can you say the same about God?

No.

God's effect on matter can be conclusively measured, for that is essentially what science is about, namely measuring and explaining the handiwork of God. It can be tested, and normally works in the same fashion under the same conditions. He is typically bound by physical laws as so far observed by science, yet physical anomalies are possible and have even been documented. God may be considered the object and subject of indirect observation on the part of science, although the biblical texts indicate He is above direct human observation, so we should not expect science to engage in the direct observation of God. I do not know of any ID advocates who suggest God can be directly observed, do you?

436 posted on 01/04/2006 9:18:40 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

Thank you for your post. I usually get the response of crickets chirping when I mention this issue to an evolutionist.


#####While there is still a lot of heat being generated by the "social justice" crowd, major advances in cognitive science and neurophysiology in the last decade have generated an overwhelming amount of evidence for what everyone has always known but which until recently was academic suicide: male and female brains are significantly different. There simply is so much evidence for it now that it has overcome the social bias against this idea -- science subverting ideology.#####


"until recently"? Yes, I suppose the president of Harvard did avoid being removed from office, but only by apologizing and recanting. What do you think would happen to a high school science teacher, and would the evolutionists who crusade so enthusiatically against "fundies" show the same rigor against feminists? I tend to doubt it.


#####males have measurably better spatial processing ability and there are structural reasons to support why this is. Roughly speaking, the a high sigma female ability in this domain is the same as the average male ability, and there are essentially no females with above average spatial abilities if males are used as the standard. The simple reason this appears to be is that men are naturally packing far more of this hardware than women (and less of other hardware).#####


How big would the firestorm be if you told a high school class about this? How fast would you be shown the door? Would the academic community defend you or fold like an accordion and agree to more diversity training, affirmative action, and multiculturalism?

If you're in academia, I hope you have tenure.



437 posted on 01/04/2006 9:21:40 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I'm not saying, directly, you are anti-science. I am basing it on your rejection of teaching scientific theories. In what way are you either pro or neutral on science? I haven't seen anything in your other posts to demonstrate this.


438 posted on 01/04/2006 9:22:19 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: knowledgeforfreedom
The effects of gravity can be observed, and have been, repeatedly.

Very well then. So can "the effects of God." The force of gravity itself has not been observed by science, let alone the cause behind the force. Yet this force is hardy considered "supernatural." Why? Because it's been with us since we were born? How "scientific!" If science is free into infer a "force" based solely upon its effects, then it is also free to infer "intelligent design" where it finds organized matter.

439 posted on 01/04/2006 9:22:42 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Which scientific theories am I against teaching? Have I said that students shouldn't learn about gravity? LOL You are putting yourself out on a limb here for no good reason. I even think the TOE should be taught - along with why so many people don't believe it. Not a big deal.


440 posted on 01/04/2006 9:25:15 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 1,061-1,070 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