Apparent End of Dover School Board Reign of Error

Does this then mean that if the Dover school board loses Kitzmiller, the probability of an appeal is now lessened? Does the newly elected board get to decide that, or does the previous board?

Is that what it looks like...a sweep?

Notice that Bonswll had the 2nd lowest vote tally (and only three votes from last place of all candidates).

Gotta love instant karma!

It definately looks like a sweep. One can only hope the next elections in Kansas look this good.

What do people think is the best course of action given a likely religion-friendly majority on the Supreme Court?

With a more reasonable complexion in Dover, should the ACLU stop things now, proceed to an appeal or let things go on the the SCOTUS with the attendant risk that this entails? Or should they leave this likely victory on the books and then take on Kansas, who I see have voted today to "do a Dover" whilst redefining science to include the supernatural as well!

Let's hope that whatever happens, the York Daily Record lets Mike Argento loose on those Kansans!

Yup, it sure looks like a sweep.

A couple important points, I think:
- when Creationists say that people, and not the courts, should decide what gets taught in their own schools they are telling you only half of the story.
The other half is that the vast majority of voters do not normally vote for school board elections, which makes these extremely susceptible to well-organized special interest campaigns, such as those of fundamentalist Creationists. Whenever the importance of a school board election with respect to the teaching of solid science vs Creationism is made clear to the public, turn-out increases and the science side almost invariably wins. It happened in Dover today, it happened in Kansas after the 1999 debacle, and hopefully will happen in Kansas again next year.
When people really get to cast an informed vote about their school programs, they regularly choose science over pseudoscience.

- Shameless Alan Bonsell, who practically perjured himself in the Harrisburg court, had the lowest vote tally of all candidates for the 4 year seats (which is good) and still he got only a few hundred votes less than the Dover CARES winners (which is, in my mind, almost unbelievable). It seems one can never underestimate the Creationists' tolerance for lies and unethical behavior, when ideology is on the line.

Does the newly elected board get to decide that, or does the previous board?

I can't even tell what I'm looking at, here. Who should we be rooting for?

Comparing the results in Dover with surrounding communities, I think I see a budding strategy for Democrats at the local level (who fairly got stomped everywhere except in Dover) - start an ev/cre "debate" in your district. Get the creationists to start warbling, taking stands that even many Republican voters cannot stomach.

At the local level, we know each other. And we're much less likely to vote for the neighbor who is acting, um, loopy. And it seems as if nothing brings out the loopy like creationism.

(Yeah, yeah, Bonsell got far too many votes. But compare Dover with neighboring communities. There are sane Republicans out there. People who are embarrassed by the antics that the district gave us in this trial.)

JonBuck,

In this particular election the creationists are the Republicans (red) and those who wish to replace them are Democrats (blue).

Note for the record that some of the winning Dover CARES candidates are in fact Republicans running on the Democratic slate. I guess the local GOP decided that all was peachy with the incumbents, and did not want to replace them.

I read one article earlier that four of the Democrats are really Republicans (sane ones, anyway).

The people have spoken and rejected the teaching of a scientifically vacuous concept.

I'd like to think that part of Harkins' loss in this race was her testimony on the witness stand that she didn't remember a darned thing from various of the school board retreats that she went on. It seems to me that paying people to attend the equivalent of "lost weekends" on the public's dime is not a good investment.

Depending on how soon they are seated under local law, the new board could choose to settle with the ACLU by firing the Thomas More Law attorneys, withdrawing the objectionable material and statement from the curriculum (and coming to some accomodation on legal fees and costs) this would eliminate the need for the trial judge to rule. Even if that doesnt happen if the ACLU prevails the new board may be disinclined to appeal thus precluding a chance for a more widely applicable precedent.

Depending on how soon they are seated under local law, the new board could choose to settle with the ACLU by firing the Thomas More Law attorneys, withdrawing the objectionable material and statement from the curriculum (and coming to some accomodation on legal fees and costs) this would eliminate the need for the trial judge to rule. Even if that doesnt happen if the ACLU prevails the new board may be disinclined to appeal thus precluding a chance for a more widely applicable precedent.

What do people think is the best course of action given a likely religion-friendly majority on the Supreme Court?

The best course of action is for the peddlers to realize that their snake oil just wasted a lot of Dover's time and money. They should pack up their garbage and go home and ask their alleged deity for forgiveness.

The US Supreme Court may be "religion friendly" but let's be clear: the people on that court are, almost to a person, not crony nitwits like Harriet Miers or insufferable morons like the former Dover school board members.

They are exceedingly intelligent human beings and I don't doubt that they will see right through the Discovery Institute's pathetic shell game, just as Judge Jones surely did.

I saw Justice Breyer giving a speech to appellate judges on C-Span and he, for one, is keenly aware of the difficulties facing scientists because poor public education has led to a similar crisis in the public's perception of the judiciary. As he put it, people simply do not understand what judges do.

This sort of ignorance is the black bruise on our country's cheek from which the vampires at the Discovery Institute ritually engorge themselves. We see how the geniuses on Kansas' Board of Education want to solve the problem: slitting their wrists.

Idiots.

Better yet, could the new board ask the trial judge to render a directed verdict against the school district, the get some precedent on the record?

How many people are on the school board? Is it eight or ten?
Are there any ID proponents left at all?

Who, exactly, are on the new school board?

What's all this "2 Year term" and "2-Year Unexp" business?
Are the other members voted in for shorter or longer periods?

"The US Supreme Court may be 'religion friendly' but let's be clear: the people on that court are, almost to a person, not crony nitwits like Harriet Miers or insufferable morons like the former Dover school board members."

While I'm no fan of Alito, his appointment to the Supreme Court would create a majority Catholic SC bench. That would be good news for the pro-evolution contingent as the Catholic church has explicitly endorsed natural selection / Darwinian evolution.

(And, no, I don't approve of any religious test for the bench. I'm just pointing out that under the current scenario, a pro-creationist or intelligent design majority us unlikely to form in the SC.)

What DorkBot asked. How many people from each list get on the board? Or is it the eight highest vote totals from any list?

There are eight current board members and all of them have been voted out of office. Clean sweep.

While I'm no fan of Alito, his appointment to the Supreme Court would create a majority Catholic SC bench. That would be good news for the pro-evolution contingent as the Catholic church has explicitly endorsed natural selection / Darwinian evolution. (And, no, I don't approve of any religious test for the bench. I'm just pointing out that under the current scenario, a pro-creationist or intelligent design majority us unlikely to form in the SC.)

Richard Thompson has a chilling view of the United States, and believes we're doomed if Catholics don't take back the culture. A nation that cleanses God from schools and the public square, Thompson told Denver-area Catholics, will murder innocent children, the disabled, the terminally ill and the elderly and mistake it all, in its early stages, as a benefit to those who get killed and society as a whole. "Abortion and euthanasia have the same common denominator: what government gives you, government can take away," Thompson said. Thompson gave the keynote address and an additional speech Oct. 15 at the Gospel of Life Conference at the John Paul II Center's Bonfils Hall. The Respect Life Office of the Archdiocese of Denver organized the event in honor of Pope John Paul II's "The Gospel of Life" encyclical. Other speakers included Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., the Rev. Msgr. Edward Buelt, pastor of Our Lady of Loreto Parish in Foxfield, and St. John Vianney Seminary professors Terrence Wright and Susan Selner-Wright. Thompson, executive director and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, became Catholic after using the late Holy Father's teachings on the value of life to guide him in his prosecution of Jack Kevorkian, the Michigan doctor who ran a suicide machine inside a rusted-out Volkswagen bus. He also tried to save Terry Schiavo, a speechless and disabled woman who was killed in Florida at the insistence of her husband. [...]

Well, the Thought Police have won one.

If the new board don't appeal - is their an increased likelihood they could pursue the Thomas More attorneys or the DI for compensation if they are saddled with the plaintiffs' legal fees? - or has Dover had enough of this kind of attention?

Well, the Thought Police have won one.

Well, the Thought Police have won one.

Well thank God for the thought police. Otherwise we would have religion masquerading (badly) as science being taught in classrooms. If this is what the thought police do, where can I sign up?

The new school board now controls what happens on the defendants' side of the case. I'm thinking that TMLC may be out of a job. Unfortunately, the school district may still be on the hook for any legal fees awarded.

The ideal outcome here, I think, is for the board and the plaintiffs to agree to let the judge come to a ruling, but that regardless of the ruling, the board will drop the old intelligent design policy and each side will bear its own costs. It really would be a shame for all of the hard work the plaintiffs went through to be for naught.

Even though a district court ruling is not a binding precedent, it has precedential value because it is published and available for other courts to review. For instance, Judge Overton's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education is frequently referred to in other cases involving creationism.

We'll see what happens, though. It wouldn't surprise me terribly to see a settlement in short order.

Depending on how soon they are seated under local law, the new board could choose to settle with the ACLU by firing the Thomas More Law attorneys, withdrawing the objectionable material and statement from the curriculum (and coming to some accomodation on legal fees and costs) this would eliminate the need for the trial judge to rule.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/11314454 343830.xml&coll=1 Even if the incumbents lose the election, they would not leave office until December. A new board would have to advertise a policy change for at least a month before taking action, said Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented parents opposed to the policy in the lawsuit.

Thanks, Mike Walker.
I'm still curious about what the "2 year term" business is about.

Can anyone help out an overseas reader?

I would find it very worrying that the vote was so close.
Even after proving the incumbents dishonest, it was still a close run thing!
I am aware that the shift is larger than it first appears, but who on earth votes for people proven to be untrustworthy?
Beggars belief.

Well, the Thought Police have won one.

the vast majority of voters do not normally vote for school board elections, which makes these extremely susceptible to well-organized special interest campaigns, such as those of fundamentalist Creationists. Whenever the importance of a school board election with respect to the teaching of solid science vs Creationism is made clear to the public, turn-out increases and the science side almost invariably wins...Shameless Alan Bonsell, who practically perjured himself in the Harrisburg court, had the lowest vote tally of all candidates for the 4 year seats (which is good) and still he got only a few hundred votes less than the Dover CARES winners (which is, in my mind, almost unbelievable). It seems one can never underestimate the Creationists' tolerance for lies and unethical behavior, when ideology is on the line.

— Andrea Bottaro

Even after proving the incumbents dishonest, it was still a close run thing!

— Stephen Elliott

P.S. This article completely destroys the thesis that the Catholic Church can be counted on to be "pro-evolution"

— morbius

Shameless Alan Bonsell, who practically perjured himself in the Harrisburg court

Why do you say that? I don't think the Catholic church gives a crap about what Richard Thompson says or thinks.

When you consider the vast numbers of anti-evolution letters to the editor of the York papers, it should come as no surprise that the pro-ID candidates received so many votes. Even more so if you consider the content of those letters, many of which showed blind, irrational allegiance to the pro-ID sect--perhaps they saw Behe as an excellent witness, and saw Bonsell and the others as victimized on the stand. For years, we've seen Creationists repeating the same lies and misinformation despite frequently pointing out the errors and falsehoods; the Faithful don't seem to be disturbed by such dishonesty.

Weslely is one of those - like the late Dover board - hoping for a Police STATE which is completely different.

There's still a lot of things that have to play out. It seems likely that the TMLC made some sort of "deal" with the outgoing school board to cover any expenses should they happen to lose the case. Really, it wouldn't make any sense for them NOT to settle and risk paying the $1+ million plaintiff's fees unless TMLC had promised to cover them. They are not covered by insurance for this case, and risking that kind of financial loss when the schools are nearly strapped to begin with is criminally stupid.

So it will be interesting to see, assuming they lose the case, and assuming the ACLU wins their expenses, whether or not Thompson still ponies up the cash even though the board is sure to drop ID from their standards. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I'm not a lawyer but....

I've been following the trial and this is what I think will happen. The new school board won't be seated until early December, and said this mornignt they won't do anything hasty w.r.t. the lawsuit. Thus, it looks like the verdict will be handed down before the new school board gets to act, and (IMHO) that's exactly what we want, because it's hard to imagine a court case could have been screwed up any worse than Dover and Thomas More screwed this one. At that stage, I would hope the plaintiff's attorneys are just flexible enough about costs, etc., to let the new school board settle without losing too much face. The new school board decides not to appeal, and if they don't want to appeal, there's not a damn thing Thomas More can do about it. Result: verdict goes against ID, suit never gets any further.
On to Kansas!

Sooo - let me ask a few uncomfortable questions, folks.

1. Do you know who the current school board members are in YOUR school district, or at least where the board stands on science vs pseudo-science?

2. Do you know who was elected yesterday to your local school board, and where they stand?

3. Are you reasonably confident that a stealth Creationist campaign did not take over your school board yesterday, while you were looking the other way?

If you read PT because you care about science education, you must be able to answer YES to these questions. The lesson from Dover is: PAY ATTENTION. Because when people pay attention, they choose science.

Think about it: you may have woken up in Kansas this morning, without even knowing it.

While I'm no fan of Alito, his appointment to the Supreme Court would create a majority Catholic SC bench. That would be good news for the pro-evolution contingent as the Catholic church has explicitly endorsed natural selection / Darwinian evolution. (And, no, I don't approve of any religious test for the bench. I'm just pointing out that under the current scenario, a pro-creationist or intelligent design majority us unlikely to form in the SC.)

This is phenomenally naive. Scalia dissented from Aguillard, as did Roberts' mentor Rehnquist.

[The Dover ex-school board is] not covered by insurance for this case, and risking that kind of financial loss when the schools are nearly strapped to begin with is criminally stupid.

Scalia's dissent in Aguillard is not an endorsement of creationism. The circuit court ruled against Louisiana using the purpose prong of the Lemon Test, which Scalia hates. So Scalia said that the circuit court needed to redo their argument.

Brian wrote: Not that I'm thrilled with Scalia's dissent. It may be that, given the opportunity, Scalia might allow creationism into the classroom. But--- in my entirely underinformed, law-ignorant opinion, anyway--- the dissent from Aguillard doesn't show convincingly that he would.

I concur, and I am a lawyer. Aguillard was decided in the district court on a motion for summary judgment, meaning, no trial ever ensued in which there was a record with findings of fact regarding the religious purpose of the creationist legislation. Consider the record Judge Jones has to draw from in Kitzmiller; there is a super-abundance of evidence from the commentary of Buckingham, and the religious commentary of many other board members, to the evidence Forrest gave about the Wedge and all involved with DI and the Panda's book. Should Kitzmiller make it to the SCOTUS, there will be a literal treasure trove of facts cited by Jones -- if he does it right, and I am quite inclined to believe he will -- to satisfy Scalia. (I would add, if Jones makes clear how some board members clearly engaged in a campaign of perjury to hide their religious motives, no S. Ct. justice is going to take that well.)

At some point in his dissent, Scalia left open the possibility that with a fulsome record, he might join the majority. Politics are always involved, of course, no matter how mightily any on left or right deny it, and the High Court would be aware that Jones is a Bush 43 appointee, and not a "liberal." So, there would not be any reflexive interest in overruling him.

Jones will, I am quite certain, issue a ruling in this case. To my mind, his findings about Panda's could be very important, since it would sink the only ID book "out there," and along with it take all those DI fellows who are involved with it. As precedential value such a decision, even if not appealed and affirmed, would be extremely valuable.

P.S. This article completely destroys the thesis that the Catholic Church can be counted on to be "pro-evolution"

— moribus

The issue that the Supreme Court ruled on in that case was not "Can 'creation science' be taught in the public schools?" but "The lower court ruled that 'creation science' was unconstitutional without even giving them a chance to demonstrate whether or not it had scientific merit; should the case be sent back to the lower court for further review?"

Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented from the Aguillard ruling. These Justices took special exception to the majority's reliance on evidence of the subjective motives of the legislators who enacted the Louisiana law. In their view, the "purpose" of the Louisiana legislature in enacting the challenged law was necessarily a fiction--a composite of the multiple and mixed motives of the many people composing the legislature.

"The thought police..." aka the citizens, the voters, the people.

I would find it very worrying that the vote was so close. Even after proving the incumbents dishonest, it was still a close run thing!

— Steven Elliot

improvius wrote, "It seems likely that the TMLC made some sort of "deal" with the outgoing school board to cover any expenses should they happen to lose the case. Really, it wouldn't make any sense for them NOT to settle and risk paying the $1+ million plaintiff's fees unless TMLC had promised to cover them. They are not covered by insurance for this case, and risking that kind of financial loss when the schools are nearly strapped to begin with is criminally stupid."

Never underestimate the power of stupidity. In all likelihood, the TMLC only promised a free defense, not that they would pay the plaintiffs' legal fees if the school board lost. And I doubt the plaintiffs will compromise much on the legal fees; the ACLU probably promised them free representation, so the only way the plaintiffs' lawyers get paid is by recovering from the Dover School District. Considering that Dover can't even pay their teachers a decent salary, they are in for some tough times, which the new school board can fortunately blame on the stupidity of the last school board.

While Reed Cartwright is correct that Justice Scalia hates the Lemon test, Scalia nevertheless applied it in Aguillard. Scalia felt that under the first prong of that test, the sparse record before the Court permitted the finding that there was a secular purpose behind the "Balanced Treatment Act," and for him, that means it is irrelevant whether there is also a religious one. But consider the record in Kitzmiller and what it shows about the lack of any secular purpose, and the overwhelming evidence about a religious one.

Here is an excerpt from Scalia's dissent, and a link to the whole thing. Read it with the record in Kitzmiller in mind:

Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that [secular - ed.] purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators," 778 F.2d 225, 227 (CA5 1985) (Gee, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it. I dissent. Had requirements of the Balanced Treatment Act that are not apparent on its face been clarified by an interpretation of the Louisiana Supreme Court, or by the manner of its implementation, the Act might well be found unconstitutional; but the question of its constitutionality cannot rightly be disposed of on the gallop, by impugning the motives of its supporters. ... Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm

At some point in his dissent, Scalia left open the possibility that with a fulsome record, he might join the majority. Politics are always involved, of course,

Do I detect a pattern here?

Kansas tries to teach pseudoscience in 1999, and some conservatives on the BOE get kicked out. Dover tries again - different strategy, but still pseudoscience - and the school board goes from all red to all blue. And now Kansas, which regained conservatives in the "Darwin-only" era, is trying again.

Tell me again who is effectively booting God out of the public square. Hint, they're the ones who think they can catch Him in an "irreducibly complex mousetrap."

Do I detect a pattern here?

A 1-2% margin of victory is decisive in electoral terms, but says very plainly that the voting public is quite divided.

If the ballot had contained a Rovian "hot-button(TM)" issue, such as a measure against abortion or gay marriage or flag-burning, or whatever boogeyman, all those now celebrating "the will of the people" would be moaning about how easily citizens can be deceived, and how at least the creationist board and TMLC might dig their hole deeper by likely appealing their probable court loss.

In terms of legal strategy, the pro-science side may, on balance, have lost an advantage Tuesday. In political terms, we clearly gained some ground: the message "ID creationists lost all their seats, in a red city!" is as clear a deterrent as you could ask for. Either way, the American culture war continues, as nasty as ever.

I suspect you do - it's a cycle

— Flint

Well, whaddya know? Facts won out over fairy tales. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel we've all been seeking?

My point is, Scalia finds SOME reason to dissent whenever the majority's decision offends his religious sensibilities.

— Flint

But an opposing view could come from the only incumbent left on the board, Heather Geesey, whose seat was the only one not up for election this year. She is a defendant in the case because she voted in favor of requiring that intelligent design be mentioned in high school biology classes.

I just wanted to say that there are sane Republicans out there.
Just go to freerepublic.com and try to find posts about intelligent design.
Some members want to discuss it, but usually when there is a posted article there are three or four comments max, and they all talk about how stupid intelligent design and other forms of creationism are.

Methinks she's going to be in for an uncomfortable time.

I wonder if the Dover verdict, or legal fees awards, will dissuade Kansas. Probably not. The Discovery Institute is whispering sweet nothings into their ear.

As a member of the ACLU, I'll say this Kansas--if you too want to pay our lawyers to fight you, we got nothin better to do.

I just wanted to say that there are sane Republicans out there. Just go to freerepublic.com ...

I just wanted to say that there are sane Republicans out there. Just go to freerepublic.com and try to find posts about intelligent design. Some members want to discuss it, but usually when there is a posted article there are three or four comments max, and they all talk about how stupid intelligent design and other forms of creationism are.

Before, it was just a short statement being read to students, but Intelligent Design was not going to be taught. Now, Intelligent Design will be taught, just not in a science class. Looks to me like Intelligent Design wins. Students are smart enough to know that there can't be two opposing truths. (or as Dire Straits put it in Industrial Disease, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong...")

There is a reason why less than 20% of Americans believe in evolution. It's not because we are all uneducated hicks. When the so-called facts of evolution are honestly examined, reasonable people see right through it.

There is a reason why less than 20% of Americans believe in evolution.

It's not because we are all uneducated hicks.

There is a reason why less than 20% of Americans believe in evolution.

Before, it was just a short statement being read to students, but Intelligent Design was not going to be taught. Now, Intelligent Design will be taught, just not in a science class. Looks to me like Intelligent Design wins.

I wouldn't say that -- ID will be part of a comparative religion course, an elective at that. That could always have been the case, but it's not what the DI and the ID movement want.

I seriously don't get why the religious crowd can't just accept that religion and science address different questions, and they don't necessarily have to cram religious discussion into a science classroom.

The fact that they insist on it leads me to believe that they don't care about evolution per se, the christian right just wants an excuse to shoehorn their flavor of belief into the public school system, without having to give other religions groups equal time (i.e. buddhists, muslims, etc).

But, I guess if teaching straight science is outlawed, only outlaws will teach science. In that case, Viva La Evolucion!

https://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=4480

I doubt that it's a coincidence that here and in other predominantly Christian countries, the proportion of people who believe in creationism (ID/YEC) is about the same as those who believe in a literal hell.

[cough] A few creationists are simply evil in intent; a few more are simply criminal. More still are insane; and yet more are both absurdly vain and stupid. Even more are studiously ignorant, exhibiting one or more of the previously mentioned, while the most of all are ignorant because they believe themselves to be stupid and uncurious.
Unless you wish to bend the meaning of the words far more than myself, NOT ONE creationist (in the basic, anti-evolution at any price sense) can be described as intelligent and honest.
What a sick, dull and unhappy world these folk would allow to come into being if not opposed: sick, dull and unhappy for themselves as well as others.

Indeed.... Religious Fundamentalist's are their own worst enemy, by insisting on their particular rigid interpretation of the "Word of God" and seeing any knowledge as a threat to that rigid interpretation and therefore their Creator ironically delivers them to their own personal hell.
That's what happened in the Middle East about a 1000 years ago

They see sophisticated systems as a mind-boggling treat.

They want to hij*ck science and fly it with the Bible and no more knowledge than you would get by playing Flight Sim.

Today science tomorrow the world.[Shudder]

Say no more.

I live in Mpls, MN.
I would like to compliment MOST of you citizens for not allowing narrow-minded, misinformed, members of your community from negating science for the sake of relgious "theory."

I am just wondering "why" you people allowed the previous board members to emerge victorious in the first place?

Hopefully Kansas was a mistake. Don't let the uneducated doctrinaires usurp YOUR RIGHT to EDUCATE your children properly.

REMOVE ALL bigoted, right-wingers from all seats of authority. It should be obvious to most of you that religion should stay out of the political arena.

Shame on the former school board members. Hopefully you folks have sent a message to the rest of us that "we will NOT be deceived by wolves in sheep's clothing."

Thanks Again

My biggest problem with the fundies is the immoral attitude that ignorance should be fostered by the education system. It is one thing for them to remain ignorant by their own decision, its another for them to dictate that my child's education should be retarded because of their irrational ridiculous antiquated religious views. I was taught, by my teacher parents, that I should strive to be more educated than they. Funny how the fundies want their children more ignorant.

This post addresses a question asked earlier.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/search/ci_3055789

--- May 17, 2005 -- A record number of voters went to the polls to vote [in primary elections] for a record number of school board candidates. A field of 18 candidates was narrowed to 14: Seven were incumbent school board members and seven were members of Dover CARES, (Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies). The incumbents won the Republican ballot; Dover CARES candidates will have to run as Democrats. Due to resignations, eight of nine positions on the board are up for election in November.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and "spin" going on about the Dover ID/Evolution trial.

Here's a good article to help set things straight.

Also, you can read my post with a link to a PDF paper which discusses Are We Designs Or Occurrences?.

The author, John H. Calvert, asks a very important question in the subtitle of his article, "Should science and government prejudge the question?"

One "Christine" would have us go to the Disco Inst's CRSC as a remedy for "spin and misinformation"??? And cites John Calvert as an authority?

Christine: this is "Panda's Thumb", not "Comedy Central".

Dear Russell,

Thanks for the welcome. Er...maybe not.

Did you even read the posts? Do you even consider that you could be wrong on some portions of this?

Oh what am I saying...the answer is of course not!

It's the same ole' same ole' bashing rhetoric. Fine.

Your own mind is your 'god'. Well...enjoy your Tower of Babel. We'll see Who wins in the end.

While trying to locate a link to the article at WorldNetDaily, I found that it was an excerpt from a 32 page PDF paper! Yikes. But don't let that cause you to shy away from reading it. The references at the bottom of each page just make the article seem longer than it really is.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and "spin" going on about the Dover ID/Evolution trial.

— Christine

My History on this topic. Back in 1999, I attended my first ID Seminar at Biola University. Phillip Johnson was one of the prominent guest speakers and his lecture was truely fascinating and informative. The more I read and studied about this topic, the more I realized that Darwinism is no where near an "established fact" as the scientific elites would have us believe. In fact, the history of Darwinism was filled with fakes, frauds, and fallacies which were passed off to an unsuspecting public to make it seem that Darwinism was a sound theory. Investigating the truth will certainly make one free of such assumptions. Back in July of 2004, I started listing many of the "Icons of Evolution" at my Message Board that have been proven to be fakes, frauds, and/or fallacies. We must realize that many of these former so-called "proofs" of evolution have swayed the minds of thousands in schools and universities so that they were incontrovertably indoctrinated into believing that Darwinian Macro-evolution was fact. Since the scientific elite does not want any competition to its beloved philosophical viewpoint, the introduction of Intelligent Design Theory is just not welcome.

— Christine's blog

Did you even read the posts?

Do you even consider that you could be wrong on some portions of this?

Oh what am I saying...the answer is of course not!

It's the same ole' same ole' bashing rhetoric.

Your own mind is your 'god'. Well...enjoy your Tower of Babel. We'll see Who wins in the end.

Back in 1999, I attended my first ID Seminar at Biola University.

— Christine

Overview of Biola University Center for Global Thought and Spiritual Renewal Biola University is a private Christian university founded in 1908. We offer 145 academic programs, ranging from the B.A. to the Ph.D., through six schools. All are regionally and professionally accredited and based on evangelical Christianity. Biola is recognized as a National University (ranked by US News & World Report)- one of 229 out of the 3,300 institutions of higher learning in the United States that are called the "major leagues" of higher education. Biola is the only school among the 100 members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the only Evangelical Christian University to hold such a distinction. Many Biola students express their faith through work in off-campus Christian service. Each year, our students and faculty involve themselves in nearly 200,000 hours of community service. Whether leading a Bible study in a nearby church or evangelizing on the streets of inner cities, the Biola community is active in living and sharing their faith!

Are you suggesting that someone who attends Biola University might already have a bias in some direction? Why, how can you be sure?

James Taylor stated: "Considering that there is no theory of Intelligent Design other than the Universe is Designed and there is no way to prove or disprove the hypothesis, what benefit does ID offer society and science."

But there is an hypothesis. That's a start. If you read the article links you would have the answer to your question (re: what benefit does ID offer society and science). But you do not want to acknowledge the ligitimate questions that are stated in the articles. Instead, you focus on your own "materialism only" mantra and call it a day.

The question about "who is the designer" isn't addressed and doesn't need to be. The hypothesis that something appears designed (so therefore, it could have been designed) does not need to identify the "designer." It could be left up to the philosophers, religionists, and even the Carl Sagan wannabes of the world. It is falsifiable if evolution ever discovers a naturalistic method that would negate the need for a designer. Evolution fails in that respect. But it's accepted anyway, right? Why? Because of the pre-conceived notion that "it must have happened that way." And you people call ID unscientific.

I think that students should be exposed to the positive and negative aspects of Darwinism. They should be aware of the frauds, fallacies, and deceptions that have been passed off as "evidence" of macro-evolution, which is entirely speculative. Extrapolating the evidence of micro-evolution into the belief that it leads to evidence of macro-evolution is the old shell game of Darwinists. No one disputes minor change over time within a species. But there is no evidence of the change from one species to another. The fossil record fails on that accord. But the elite establishment doesn't want the general public to know this. They continue to float their assumptions even when the evidence leads away from their precious macro-evolutionary imaginations. It's their own "religious dogma", so to speak. Their allegiance to materialism only macro-evolution theory prohibits new thought on the issue. It doesn't allow for research into design by definition.

Why shouldn't students discuss the question, "are we designs or occurences?" And, should science and government prejudge the question? Why or why not? Just what is it that is holding back such a discussion?

Even Darwin recognized the merits of such a discussion when he stated, "I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality."

The following concluding paragraphs from Clavert's paper tells us exactly why Darwinists do not want a discussion about "are we designs or occurences":

"Opening a discussion of design by discussing Darwin's theory of no design without allowing a hearing of the scientific dissent would seem to be the kind of official viewpoint discrimination proscribed by Pico and Rosenberger v. Rector109 under the Speech Clause. If the state cannot require students to salute the US flag, then why should it be permitted to imbue them with a naturalistic and materialistic belief that life is just an occurrence and not a design? According to the Court that outlawed the salute, "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."110 All of these cases suggest that the only way for government to constitutionally satisfy its job of informing students about origins science is to do that comprehensively and not selectively."

"Since it is impractical to censor the discussion of origins in its entirety, that necessarily requires that both sides of the Darwinian controversy be explored without the use of religious or naturalistic assumptions.
The idea of inclusion rather than exclusion is also reflected in the advice of Congress in the Report that accompanied the No Child Left Behind Act111 and Darwin's own advice. In the Conclusion of the Origin of the Species, Darwin hoped for a future of "young and rising naturalists, who [would] be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." An "Evolution Only" paradigm conflicts with the advice of both Darwin and Congress. It contemplates showing young naturalists only the atheistic friendly side of the scientific debate."

"One frequently hears the argument that any discussion of design will necessarily involve a discussion of the identity of the hypothetical designer. The simple and truthful answer to that question is that a scientific analysis of the data does not reveal the identity of a designer, if any. DNA does not bear a copyright notice or signature.
As a practical matter, it seems that public schools have no honest or ethical choice in the matter. If methodological naturalism is in fact used to censor design, then that practice must be fully and adequately disclosed to satisfy cannons of scientific ethics that requires the disclosure of bias and how bias affects the selection of data and explanations given. 112 Any adequate disclosure of methodological naturalism will necessarily involve a discussion of design theory
and the fact that it is supported by relevant evidence. A short drama called The Rule 113 explains the dilemma faced by a school board that would like to avoid a discussion of design, but can find no honest way to do so. A prejudice works only so long as it is hidden. Once its ugliness is revealed and acknowledged, embarrassment guarantees its demise."

Conclusion

"As patrons of science we and our children need to hear both sides of the origins controversy to engage in "informed decision making" about religion, government, ethics and morals.

Information rather than indoctrination will solve the legal and scientific problems and lead to a more interesting and less contentious debate."

Please Christine, explain what is the "materialism mantra"? Also, please explain how to prove the existence of the supernatural. If you can prove the existence of the supernatural, then I might concede a point. Nature exists and constantly reminds humanity that we should be mindful of her gift. How does the supernatural affect me? Answer is it doesn't because I am not superstitious.

Also, Christine, it is naive to specify that there is no reason to identify the desinger. It is a valid scientific question once it has been postulated. It is an integral piece of the theory because without a designer there is no design and designs are pieces of those that design them. The only reason the designer is ambiguous in the current creationist form is to make it appear to be non-religious.

But there is an hypothesis. That's a start. If you read the article links you would have the answer to your question (re: what benefit does ID offer society and science). But you do not want to acknowledge the ligitimate questions that are stated in the articles. Instead, you focus on your own "materialism only" mantra and call it a day.

— Christine

Extrapolating the evidence of micro-evolution into the belief that it leads to evidence of macro-evolution is the old shell game of Darwinists. No one disputes minor change over time within a species. But there is no evidence of the change from one species to another. The fossil record fails on that accord.

Oh and finally, Christine, ID would be incorporated into science eventually if it had any scientific merit. The fact that it doesn't is the failure of Behe, Dembski and the rest of the DI to actually produce a plausible scientific argument. You really should be telling them to get their act together and produce some science that scientists can work with rather than the pseudo scientific arguments (garbage) they peddle. You are aware that Behe thinks that Astrology is valid science. If Astrology is valid science then Voodoo, Witchcraft, Augery and Shamanism are all scientific as well.

The question about "who is the designer" isn't addressed and doesn't need to be.

As patrons of science we and our children need to hear both sides of the origins controversy

Christine is too busy preaching at us heathens to listen, JT.

If she would stop being a god-bothering tub-thumper for a few minutes and eludidate a real argument, rather than just preaching, she might learn somehting.

I doubt it tho.

just like most other creationists, she projects her own inability to hear anything contrary onto the rest of the world, including those here at PT.

christine, you have finished preaching to any lurkers out there, and the rest of us here have hear the same song and dance for many years now.

participate in the learning process, or move your pulpit back to your own blog.

I have a business meeting to prepare for and attend tonight so this will be my final post today. If I had the time, I would cut and paste the appropriate portions, but since I don't I will just give the link.

It is a common misconception that the designer necessarily has to be identified as supernatural. ID doesn't make such a claim and it is not necessary, either.

Discovery Center Amicus Brief

I noticed that no one has answered two of the original questions.

Are we designs or occurrences?

Should science and government prejudge the question?

here's your answers:

-the answer would be subjective, so is not the purview of science to answer. The presumption from those who practice science on a regular basis would be the latter, based on hundreds of years of evidence. However, the point here is that there is no way to test for any design not orginated by humans (or animals that we can anthropomorphise, like tool making in apes).

-science inherently prejudges nothing, nor does "government". people do.

now i have questions for you:

how would you design a scientific experiment to test for design not of human origin? what assumptions would you have to start with in order to do so?

we don't need to see DI's "arguments" they have been well dissected and dismissed here ages ago.

present your own arguments and stop being nothing more than a cheerleader.

It is a common misconception that the designer necessarily has to be identified as supernatural.

No, it isn't.

THINK about it and trace back the designers. At some point, there's the first organism...who designed it? Or didn't you think that far back?

Well, Christine, I notice you didn't answer my questions either which were asked before yours so I will repeat them...

What is the purpose of the design?

Who is the designer or designers?

When did the designer(s) do whatever the designer did?

Does the designer(s) still manipulate the design, and if so, what mechanism does the designer(s) use to affect the real world?

You waved your hand and claim that identifying the designer is trivial. It is not trivial, because the entire theory is based upon design by a designer. Declaring "its designed" and not providing any argument for is simply lazy and dishonest. The only argument provided by Behe is biological things are really complex so it must be designed and the only argument by Dembski is the probability against is 10^150 to 1. These are vapid ridiculous arguments. If there were more ID might have some meaning, but if the entire concept is torn down by simple arguments like "if humans are designed, then why are our biological systems prone to attacks, random bugs and failures", it is not much of an argument. I can easily conclude that since the design is flawed, fatally in some cases, that the designer is flawed or even worse evil. Do you want your evangelical beliefs conflated with a lazy or evil deity?

It is a common misconception that the designer necessarily has to be identified as supernatural. ID doesn't make such a claim and it is not necessary, either.

But there is an hypothesis. That's a start.

You waved your hand and claim that identifying the designer is trivial

The question about "who is the designer" isn't addressed and doesn't need to be. The hypothesis that something appears designed (so therefore, it could have been designed) does not need to identify the "designer."

Is *THAT* the best that ID can come up with?

Are we designs or occurrences? Should science and government prejudge the question?

There are several relevant resources that readers should check out on matters of "intelligent design" conjectures.

The TalkDesign web site hosts a number of critiques of "intelligent design" claims, including Behe's "irreducible complexity".

The TalkOrigins Archive is a web site with a large number of FAQs on both antievolution claims and straightforward explications of evolutionary biology. Of special interest to Rob will be the FAQs on speciation (1, 2) and macroevolution (Macroevolution, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent). There are even resources on the topic of evolving fitness and Lee Spetner.

I also have a page on evolutionary increases in information, which fills the request made by Rob nicely, IMO.

Also, check out the new weblog, The Panda's Thumb, at which I'm a contributor.

I'd like to make an observation on "intelligent design" in general. ID claims are aimed at obtaining a concession that evolutionary processes are insufficient to account for observed biological phenomena. After that, ID advocates hope that people will simply fill in with an "intelligent designer" of their preference to cover the gap. ID arguments are all of the negative variety: because evolution can't do this, you must accept that an "intelligent designer" did.

So, how do ID advocates wend their way toward finding evolutionary insufficiency? Do they identify phenomena with good evidential records of their origin and find that no natural mechanisms are able to cover the situation? No, they do not. ID advocates identify the systems that have the least evidence that can bear upon just how they might have arisen and whack on those. If evolutionary biologists don't have the evidence to work with, they certainly can't generate "detailed, testable pathways" that ID advocates like Rob claim it is their burden to produce. This is such a weak and pathetic strategy that the term I use for Michael Behe's arguments now is "God of the crevices". You see, Behe's claim to fame is to have taken the old young-earth creationist bleat of "what good is half a wing?" and bring it into the modern era of molecular biology, reborn as, "what good is half a flagellum?" Biochemistry, Behe says, is the basement floor, and there is no further place to go. Thus, the gaps Behe goes on about have a bottom, and are crevices.

Back in 2001, I was in a panel with William Dembski, and pointed out that the only way for ID to progress was to take up those case where there was evidence at hand. Things like the impedance-matching system of the mammalian middle ear and the Krebs citric acid cycle. Michael Behe was sitting in the audience at the time. Have ID advocates taken up those sort of systems for analysis? Not on your life.

"Intelligent design" advocates use Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "specified complexity" as arguments to convince people to disregard theories which have some evidential support, and force acceptance of conjectures with no evidential support. It's a good trick, that.

The hypothesis that something appears designed (so therefore, it could have been designed)

It is a common misconception that the designer necessarily has to be identified as supernatural.

Posted by Christine on November 14, 2005 10:40 AM (e) (s) Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and "spin" going on about the Dover ID/Evolution trial. Here's a good article to help set things straight. Also, you can read my post with a link to a PDF paper which discusses Are We Designs Or Occurrences?. The author, John H. Calvert, asks a very important question in the subtitle of his article, "Should science and government prejudge the question?"

I am sure you mean well. But would you really want to live in a country that imposed a different religion on you, than you believe in?

— Stephen Elliott

Imagine Voodoo 101 featuring blocks on Ritual Slaughter and Dollmaking.

what does anybody think the general reaction would be to that?

yup. it would be a joyous diversion for them, don't you think?

I mean, really, I could easily make a reasonable argument that the current uproar over teaching evolution has as much to do with a lack of understanding of other religions and cultures as anything.

based on that, it would be MORE reasonable to propose we teach comparative religion in high schools, wouldn't it?

How much effort do you think it would take to start a counter movement for teaching a comparative religion course in high schools?

how many fundies would bite on that movement and drop their ridiculous attacks on science?

The fundies would clamor loud and long to shut it down.

I wonder what would happen if we started a movement to try to teach a REAL comparative religion class in high school. what does anybody think the general reaction would be to that? can you see what might be the value in it, even if we weren't really serious about seeing it come to fruition?

— Sir_Toejam

I expect it would be raise

— I

I expect it would raise

What is really missing is an elementary ethics class

I agree STJ, but if it was approached as an abstract class where ethical philosophies are taught rather than specifics of a religion it would be more likely to survive.

how about comparative ethics:- Fundamentalism , Identity Politics ,postmodernist reality denial ,pseudoscience vs Ethics

I agree STJ, but if it was approached as an abstract class where ethical philosophies are taught rather than specifics of a religion it would be more likely to survive

god is gay!!!!!!!!!!1111

I think this is a good thing to dover because students cannot only learn about evelotion but learn about creation. I think more public schools should do this .most students don,t relize what god really is or how he made this earth.

Welcome!!! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. pagerank 5: Search Engine Optimization, Professional SEO, pagerank algorithm. Also online pr16 from google pr .

lookkgoogleprmainuRa***t

It's just bots (mouse over their names and check the link in the status bar). Can't PT just block comments from anyone whose name starts 'kaka' or 'google pr'? They spam PT constantly.