Education Intelligent Design

School Board Change in Dover

Spread the love

Pennsylvania Voters Oust School Board That Backed Intelligent Design

11-09-2005 12:39 AM
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer

DOVER, Pa. — Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

http://phoenix.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_state=maximized&view=article&id=D8DOQFOO3

17 Replies to “School Board Change in Dover

  1. 1
    pmob1 says:

    There’s a real simple solution. Rescind compulsory ed. but continue to make available funds for education if desired. All public funding goes with kid, to whichever school the parents choose, including home schools. Local jurisdictions can set their own standards (or not). No one forces information on anyone else. It would be just like being in that country, what’s its name again? Oh yeah, America.

  2. 2
    DaveScot says:

    I’d say better late than never but it’s not in this case. The democratic process was compromised by financial interests as some voters cast out the old board members because they didn’t want the tiny school district footing any possible legal bills. If the judge awards millions in legal costs to plaintiff it’s going to hurt the tiny township of Dover. Of course the ACLU knew this going in and that was certainly a major, if not THE major part of the decision in choosing to sue Dover instead of, say, the State of Kansas. Kansas voters could easily absorb millions in legal fees so cost of defense and any appeals all the way to the Supreme Court isn’t an issue for them.

    The new school board will almost certainly not appeal a decision that goes against the old board thus sparing the taxpayers any possible costs associated with an appeal. If the decision is with the old board the new board will vote to drop the policy anyway and there won’t be anything for Kitzmiller to appeal. Either way there won’t be any appeals and this won’t be the trial that proceeds to the Supreme Court for a definitive legal verdict on constitutionality of teaching ID in public school.

    I’d like to see the ACLU go up against the State of Kansas but I doubt they will. That would be a level playing field and the last thing the anti-religion zealots want is a level playing field – the cowards.

  3. 3
    ajl says:

    Well, as sad as this is, it is the way our country works. And, oftentimes, a populate will make bad choices. These choices can always be changed in the next election. The danger is what the ACLU has made a habit of: ignoring the mandate of the masses and enacting laws to force certain ideas or behavior.

    So, it appears that ID in Dover is a dead issue (I deal with school boards at times, and realize the huge latitude they have). But, keep an eye on this. In most communities, only about 10% of the population votes in school board elections. So, I’m not certain this reflects everyone’s views, but rather just those who went out to the polls. Nonetheless, it is our system, and we often learn lessons from looking back.

    The people in Dover have spoken…

  4. 4
    DaveScot says:

    The new board in Dover was elected by an overall 51/49 margin. It was exceedingly close. I think it can be considered a given that taxpayers fearing the financial cost to an education budget already in crisis was what swung the vote by that tiniest of possible margins.

    In other news, there’s a very enlightening display of hypocriticality going on at Panda’s Thumb in their reaction to the Dover board election. They’re reasonably wondering if it’s better or worse that this particular case will never make it to SCOTUS. The hypocritical part is that someone pointed out that with Alito’s appointment SCOTUS will have a majority of Catholic justices and that the Catholic church’s official position on evolution is sympathetic to their cause (i.e. the Catholic church supports the teaching of standard evolutionary theory). Isn’t it simply amazing that these Darwinian narrative apologists are happy to have religious convictions decide gov’t policy when the religious conviction happens to agree with them? I hate hypocrits.

  5. 5
    DaveScot says:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....w-comments

    Oops – forgot the link to the hypocrits…

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    Err… hypocrites. I wish I’d stop spelling that word the way it should be spelled instead of the way it’s actually spelled.

  7. 7
    doctormark says:

    It looks like good people of Dover have spoken.

  8. 8
    Bombadill says:

    “Don’t bother us with the facts… we can’t have any of this ID nonsense because it could make students think that they have a purpose for living. Next thing you know, they are living by an objective moral standard rather than whatever feels good at the moment and then they’ll develop character and integrity and then… bah! what a mess it would be.”

  9. 9
    mageen says:

    I’m not sure where DaveScot gets the 51/49 margin – Here are the results from the York Daily Record: http://ydr.com/page/politics/dover/

    No doubt there are close margins, but with such low voter totals, it’s hard to say anything statistically reliable. But you can clearly say that the winners pulled it out. Conservatives as well as liberals can end up on the short end of narrow victories.

  10. 10
    trespasser says:

    Unfortunately, Bombadill, in my life I have met many, many unrepentant sinners who believed they (as human beings) were specially created by God and “didnt come from no monkey”. The only case I’m aware of where someone blamed their bad behavior on evolution was the psycho Jeffery Dahmer. I’m sure someone on this board can give me more examples, but this is what my own personal experiences have shown. “Teach them evolution and theyll behave like animals” some people say (tho not here to my knowledge). No. Teach them God, evolution, whatever, and they’ll behave like human beings have always behaved- that is in a selfish, self-serving, deluded and confused manner.

    trespasser

  11. 11
    Bombadill says:

    Agreed, trespasser. The burning question, however, is does this self-serving nature stem from an animal ancestry combined with a “selfish gene”, as the Naturalist would have us believe? Or, could there possibly be a spiritual element – a true “fallen nature” which is the result of mankind rebelling against his creator? But, I suppose it would depend on the philosophical (theological) foundation one begins with. I contend that the evidence is most certainly not in favor of the Darwinian narritive. So, I see only one other alternative.

    But then, I’ve had the opportunity to see humans radically changed and who no longer serve themselves. I suppose the Richard Dawkins of the world would assert that they are genetic mishaps.

    I say they… they are the redeemed. 😉

  12. 12
    DaveScot says:

    mageen

    “I’m not sure where DaveScot gets the 51/49 margin”

    http://w2.yorkdispatch.com/elections/skuldist.html

    Add up votes cast for winners, votes cast for losers, sum for total votes, divide winning votes into total votes…

    21265 votes for democrats (winners)
    20197 votes for republicans (losers)
    —–
    41462 total votes cast for board members

    21265/41462=51.3% percentage total for winners

    Any questions?

  13. 13
    jboze3131 says:

    The hypocritical part is that someone pointed out that with Alito’s appointment SCOTUS will have a majority of Catholic justices and that the Catholic church’s official position on evolution is sympathetic to their cause (i.e. the Catholic church supports the teaching of standard evolutionary theory

    ————-
    i dont think thats the vatican position. pope john paul didnt hold that position, tho many tried to distort his comments to make it seem he said that. no way the vatican could support standard evolutionary theory- if youre using that term to mean darwinian evolution. heck- im not even sure about ET in general with the catholic church overall.

  14. 14
  15. 15
    jboze3131 says:

    i just meant that the pope wasnt endorisng NDT, which i thought you were saying.

  16. 16
    DaveScot says:

    I said he was sympathetic with evolution not preaching it straight out of a Ken Miller biology text.

  17. 17
    pmob1 says:

    DaveScot wrote:
    “The democratic process was compromised by financial interests”

    Well, Stalin claimed a “perfect” election in ’37 but I think the democratic process is always “compromised” and especially by financial interests. I sure vote that way.

    Sure, an entire state (like Kansas) can absorb more legal costs but that strategy commits you to further centralization of education. Plus, jurisdictions aren’t always motivated to minimize legal costs. My city and school board seem to actively invite cases and to maximize “hours” for lawyers on all sides. For these pikers, there are no “losses.” The ACLU is just one player in this big circle smirk. Perceived tax capacity is the only limit. (Start at infinity, work down slowly).

    If more favorable legal ground is the priority, you’ve already lost the war. We have to make education curricula unsuable. We have to put all these people permanently out of business.

Leave a Reply