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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
This is the final hurrah of the Dover evolution-intelligent design drama. In all the other school board slots that were up for election, the incumbents lost. This incumbent is getting a revote. Whatever happens in this particular race, the conclusion appears to be that ID is electoral death.
1 posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:39 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 01/03/2006 12:14:03 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.
3 posted on 01/03/2006 12:15:21 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
the conclusion appears to be that ID is electoral death

The good guys win again. I love America!

4 posted on 01/03/2006 12:16:20 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.

But wait, we're constantly being told that ID is not a religion. It certainly isn't an attempt to sneak Christianity past the Constutional prohibition.

So which is it?

5 posted on 01/03/2006 12:17:37 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.

They've been doing for 40 years. Nothing new, when you think about it. This is just the newest incarnation of the war against traditional values and parental rights.
6 posted on 01/03/2006 12:18:35 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.

Talk about spin! The decision reiterated that public schools are no place to promote any particular religious beliefs. If the parents don't like it, they always have the option of private school.

7 posted on 01/03/2006 12:19:15 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Hillary should be well pleased with the continuing advance of her village and the defeat of the family.


8 posted on 01/03/2006 12:20:28 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
This is just the newest incarnation of the war against traditional values and parental rights.

Keeping non-science out of science classroom is part of a war against traditional values and parental rights?
9 posted on 01/03/2006 12:21:06 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Spin my eye!


10 posted on 01/03/2006 12:21:06 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
she and her fellow members might officially vote to remove the mention of intelligent design from the school district's science curriculum.

Lord forbid that you even mention it. It's illegal to even talk about it. Sounds like schools under Communism...

11 posted on 01/03/2006 12:22:34 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
It's illegal to even talk about it.

No, it isn't. Stop lying.
12 posted on 01/03/2006 12:23:00 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"public schools are no place to promote any particular religious beliefs"

I'm confused. Which particular religious beliefs were they trying to promote?


13 posted on 01/03/2006 12:23:52 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; editor-surveyor
Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator.

Of course you know, dear Patrick, that that's not what ID is at all. It says nothing about whether the source of the "intelligence" is a natural process or an agent.

I think what this brou-ha-ha is ultimately about is methodological naturalism is a scientific method based on only two of Aristotle's four causes: the material and the efficient. It is a "reductionist" method, in that it omits to consider the formal and final causes. ID is interested in all four causes.

Ultimately, this fight is not over a "creator." It's about what causes the scientific method ought to address, going forward. FWIW

14 posted on 01/03/2006 12:24:00 PM PST by betty boop (Dominus illuminatio mea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Uh oh. Editing error.

Intelligent design is the idea that it can be scientifically proved that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator.

There. Fixed it.

15 posted on 01/03/2006 12:24:08 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
No, it isn't. Stop lying.

Take it somewhere else, troll. No one's listening.
16 posted on 01/03/2006 12:24:33 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Sounds like schools under Communism...

You mean the Communist schools who rejected scientific facts when it didn't conform to their dogma? The ones that were more interested in their political agenda than actual knowledge?

If that describes anyone in this case, it describes the school board members.

17 posted on 01/03/2006 12:24:43 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

You shoulda checked the post to which I replied. He's the one who brought up "parents' beliefs."


18 posted on 01/03/2006 12:24:44 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The "science" of Darwinian materialism is in deep trouble, PH. It is hemorrhaging because it cannot answer simple questions posed by Intelligent Design. This silly little bandaid applied to the gaping wound by a small-minded angry little frump of a judge isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference over the long haul.
19 posted on 01/03/2006 12:28:46 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

So how is keeping non-science out of science classroom is part of a war against traditional values and parental rights?


20 posted on 01/03/2006 12:28:49 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: JCEccles
It is hemorrhaging because it cannot answer simple questions posed by Intelligent Design.
rather thoroughly answered. It may be true that some people don't like the answers, but given that an answer has been offered, they should at least attempt to explain where they find fault.
22 posted on 01/03/2006 12:31:07 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Argh. My post was malformed because of bad HTML.

It is hemorrhaging because it cannot answer simple questions posed by Intelligent Design.

What questions? The only "question" I've seen is "how can 'irreducably complex' structures evolve without intelligent intervention", and that question has been rather thoroughly answered. It may be true that some people don't like the answers, but given that an answer has been offered, they should at least attempt to explain where they find fault.
23 posted on 01/03/2006 12:31:46 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Simple solution to the whole mess: no more public schools. Period. Then I wouldn't have my children indoctrinated with ideas I disagree with, whether those ideas are that evolution is a proven fact or the appalling things coming out of sex education classes they teach now.

And after they graduate public school, send 'em to a private college.
24 posted on 01/03/2006 12:32:06 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ellenripley

"Is it in our country's interest to keep kids ignorant?"

Can you explain how telling students that there may be intelligent design is keeping kids ignorant? No one proposed eliminating the teaching of the TOE. You are going a little overboard.


25 posted on 01/03/2006 12:37:54 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ellenripley
If someone's parents believed that gravity only went up 3 miles, or that four times five equalled thirty, or that molecules didn't exist, would education be trampling on their rights?

In the meantime, China and India keep cranking out more scientists, engineers and mathematicians. Is it in our country's interest to keep kids ignorant?

You make some excellent points, and illustrate precisely why this fight is so important. Scientific ignorance is harmful to the future of our nation.

26 posted on 01/03/2006 12:38:15 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
If ID is taught, then I insist they teach kids the alternative 'theory' of how the flying spaghetti monster designed everything.


27 posted on 01/03/2006 12:38:39 PM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Can you explain how telling students that there may be intelligent design is keeping kids ignorant?

Telling children that intelligent design is science is lying.
28 posted on 01/03/2006 12:39:31 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: mlc9852
Can you explain how telling students that there may be intelligent design is keeping kids ignorant?

Well, it was a 'theory' that leeches were a medical cure for what ailed George Washington et al. Shall we insist that leeches be used in med school the same way as an alternative 'theory?' After all, it was good enough for the Father of Our Country.

30 posted on 01/03/2006 12:44:11 PM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Junior; BenLurkin
The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.

Talk about spin! The decision reiterated that public schools are no place to promote any particular religious beliefs. If the parents don't like it, they always have the option of private school.

Or even, like, discussing what they believe, and why, with their children over dinner.
31 posted on 01/03/2006 12:47:07 PM PST by jennyp (PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL! Don't buy the evolutionist's Big Lie that Piltdown was a hoax!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: peyton randolph

"Shall we insist that leeches be used in med school the same way as an alternative 'theory?' After all, it was good enough for the Father of Our Country."

Funny you should mention leeches. They ARE used in medicine today. Not to "bleed" patients, as they were with George Washington, but to promote blood flow when severed extremities, like fingers, etc., are reattached.

They work very well at this job.


33 posted on 01/03/2006 12:50:34 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
You know, you'd have a better argument if you insisted that Hindu creation belief be taught. It would lend some credibility to your argument to compare one deep rooted belief system with another.

Problem is. . . the good folks of Dover aren't Hindus. Turns out they may not be Christians either -- but either way they should have a greater say in what their kids are taught.

I mean . . . we are conservatives here, right?
34 posted on 01/03/2006 12:52:31 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Not to "bleed" patients, as they were with George Washington

Which I compared to ID.

but to promote blood flow

Which I am aware of...and it is comparable to evolution in this example, that is, it is based on scientific theory as opposed to a faith-based belief.

35 posted on 01/03/2006 12:55:14 PM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Turns out they may not be Christians either

How did you deduce this?
36 posted on 01/03/2006 12:55:14 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Junior
"Whether a student accepts the Board’s invitation to explore Pandas, and reads a creationist text, or follows the Board’s other suggestion and discusses “Origins of Life” with family members, that objective student can reasonably infer that the District’s favored view is a religious one, and that the District is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion. Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,” thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat."
37 posted on 01/03/2006 12:55:27 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

"Or even, like, discussing what they believe, and why, with their children over dinner."




No! Not That! Sheesh...you mean that families should speak to each other while eating food? I've never heard of such a thing. Get this started, and pretty soon you'll have families discussing things even when they're not having meals. We can't have that!

Mealtime is to be conducted with a pair of bored parents who rarely speak to each other, along with any of their offspring who aren't at a friend's house, on a date, anorexic, or terminally bored.

Said offspring must sit at the table with incredibly bored expressions and pick at their food, heaving great sighs of dissatisfaction before leaving the table to watch porn or work on their MySpace blog on their computer while eating nacho cheese chips out of the bag.

The very idea that discourse should happen while eating has been thoroughly debunked. It is a thing of the past, and must be discarded, along with all other relics of family life from those days.


38 posted on 01/03/2006 12:55:49 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ellenripley

So the students can't make up their own minds?


39 posted on 01/03/2006 12:56:02 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Did the leeches work?


40 posted on 01/03/2006 12:56:31 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
but either way they should have a greater say in what their kids are taught.

I wouldn't think conservatives would want their kids taught useless bunk in science class. That's what homes are for.

41 posted on 01/03/2006 12:56:59 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

"Problem is. . . the good folks of Dover aren't Hindus. Turns out they may not be Christians either -- but either way they should have a greater say in what their kids are taught."

Parent have the ultimate responsibility of teaching religious beliefs to their offspring. Science is not religion, and most parents are not competent to teach science to their kids. Religion, on the other hand, should never be taught by government. It is a personal matter, and nothing the government should meddle in.


42 posted on 01/03/2006 12:57:32 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Did the leeches work?

He died.

43 posted on 01/03/2006 12:57:51 PM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"Did the leeches work?"

Nope. They did little good, and often much harm. The "bleeding" cure is only useful in Polycythemia Vera, a disease where the body creates too many red blood cells. It's rare, and it's unlikely that Washington had it.


44 posted on 01/03/2006 1:00:30 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
You evidently haven't gotten the memo: Evolution does not cover the origin of life.

Also, note: ID is not science. ID's biggest proponents even said so on the stand in Dover. Why, pray-tell, would you find it necessary to bring up something not science and place it on an equal footing with science in a science class?

45 posted on 01/03/2006 1:01:02 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Everyone dies.


46 posted on 01/03/2006 1:01:05 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Sounds good. I wasn't arguing with you, just adding information.


47 posted on 01/03/2006 1:02:01 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Conservatives want the local community to decide what is or isn't useless bunk.(After all the community might conclude that evolution theory is useless bunk.) Not some unelected person in a black robe and not the bureaucrats in the state capital or Washington D.C.

We have our hands full fighting of the likes of Hillary and her nanny state allies. Now 'conservatives" want to join her in her war on the family. It is a crying shame.
48 posted on 01/03/2006 1:02:49 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: mlc9852

"Everyone dies."

Oh, dear. Yes, you're right, but not everyone dies from being bled to death by leeches. There was no science used to justify the leech treatments on Washington. It was just what doctors did at the time for things like strokes, heart problems, and almost everything else. They did it because doctors had been doing it, on faith, for a long, long time.

Then science stepped in and explained some of the intricacies of the human body. Leeching stopped for the reason that it did no good and often a lot of harm.

Science. You may have heard of it.

Besides, I thought you were planning to live forever.

Death, where is thy sting? Grave, where thy victory?

All that stuff.


50 posted on 01/03/2006 1:05:14 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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