Dover, PA school board tossed out!

[Checkmite]

2 of these nitwits just ran for school board in my town (they were defeated), using the "Family Values" mantra. The not-so-subtle message being that a vote against them was a vote against those values. I am pleasantly surprised it didn't work...although one of them did some within a hair's breadth of making it...

One person tried this a couple of years ago - without insinuation. The campaign signs literally said "A Vote For Family Values". The guy lost miserably; it seemed to me the ward residents were so offended at being "preached at" they they voted him down out of spite. Which is cool.

 

[Checkmite]

It would be so awesome if Charles Darwin appeared in a blaze of light to save the town.

Note to self: miniseries.

How could you tell the difference? The pictures I've seen of Darwin and God look uncannily similar.

On the other hand, I remember reading that the losing candidates in Dover tried to rationalize the defeat as not being about intelligent design vs. evolution, but rather that the constituency was dissatisfied about the long and expensive legal action, and "bad publicity for the town". Maybe, but...I think not.

 

[Mark]

One person tried this a couple of years ago - without insinuation. The campaign signs literally said "A Vote For Family Values". The guy lost miserably; it seemed to me the ward residents were so offended at being "preached at" they they voted him down out of spite. Which is cool.

It is cool. It seems people are starting to realize what a transparent bit of cynical manipulation the whole "family values" thing is. I hope so, anyway.

 

[headscratcher4]

How could you tell the difference? The pictures I've seen of Darwin and God look uncannily similar.

On the other hand, I remember reading that the losing candidates in Dover tried to rationalize the defeat as not being about intelligent design vs. evolution, but rather that the constituency was dissatisfied about the long and expensive legal action, and "bad publicity for the town". Maybe, but...I think not.

But that would be about ID...bad publicity, the cost, etc. all came about because ID is bad science...

 

[fishbob]

The difference, as I see it, is only in scope. The root problem is the same.

Only scope?
Certainly the root problem is the same, but the scope difference is a lot bigger than 'only'.

Kids playing with matches can accidently burn up a Froot Loops box or accidently burn down an entire apartment complex.

 

[Checkmite]

The difference, as I see it, is only in scope. The root problem is the same.

I agree; the Scopes trial is different but that's only because evolution was on the defensive in that case. But in all of these cases, it's really evolution vs. creationism.





( )

 

[Tmy]

Have you noticed God has been punishing all the red states via hurricanes n such. Its cause they voted for Bush.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Have you noticed God has been punishing all the red states via hurricanes n such. Its cause they voted for Bush.

The punishment for voting for Bush was that he won.

 

[Dr Adequate]

On the other hand, I remember reading that the losing candidates in Dover tried to rationalize the defeat as not being about intelligent design vs. evolution, but rather that the constituency was dissatisfied about the long and expensive legal action, and "bad publicity for the town". Maybe, but...I think not.

I think so, to a large extent. Certainly I can see why people might vote not as an endorsement of Darwinism per se. There would be:

(1) They say it's all about two theories. I don't care what these scientists say about their theories. This is costing me money.

(2) I am for ID. However, this is a kamikaze action, which is costing me money.

(3) I am for ID, which I believe will eventually be proved the superior theory. However, we are not yet at the stage where we can get it into the schoolbooks, and Behe's flounderings on the witness stand and our association with religious crackpots makes us look stupid. And this is costing me money.

(4) I am for ID, and shall say so to my children. However, as the founding fathers recognised, even a little bit of theocracy is perilous to religion and democracy both. Oh, and this is costing me money.

(5) I am for ID. However, this should be worked out by scientists. Having this debate at a little, local level makes us look like Kipling's Village That Voted The World Was Flat. Oh, and it's costing me money.

(6) I am for ID, and would like to see it in public schools, but the clowns who said that they'd get it into public schools have perjured themselves on the witness stand and made us all look like idiots and liars. They are a liablity and must go. And they cost me money.

(7) I am for ID, but as various members of the board have revealed themselves as liars and fools I cannot in conscience support them even though I agree with them on this issue. Oh, and the money thing... we could maybe have spent it on something else?

(8) I am for ID and would like to see it taught in classrooms. However the testimony of Behe shows that Pandas and People misrepresents ID, and so does not teach it; and misrepresents evolution, which doesn't come under my idea of treating the two theories equally. But I'm paying good money for the defense of this inaccurate "textbook".

Etc, etc. And you can also combine numbers 2 - 8 with consistency.

I think there might have been a very different result if everything had gone well in the Pandas triel. Instead, the good people of Dover want to make it clear that it is not they who are a laughng stock..

 

[zenith-nadir]

TRANSLATION:

"We - the Dover, Pa. school board members - are unable to understand the complexity of living things so any phenomenon or feature that cannot be fully explained to us is evidence of supernatural intervention".

 

[BPSCG]

December issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine has a letter from a very sharp guy named John Clinger. Can't link to it on CSICOP's website, but here's an extract from the letter. Remember it next time you have to speak at a school board hearing:

• How many designers were there? (One per solar system? One per planet?)
• Were there different designers for mammals, reptiles, insects, etc.?
• Were there competing designers, such as for predators vs prey?
• Were there subsequent designers? (The Wright brothers may have designed the first successful plane, but they did not design the 747.)
• Is the original designer still designing, or retired? (Or dead?)
• Did the designer make mistakes? (If not, why have millions of women died during natural childbirth? Why did dinosaurs and variouis species of protohumans die out?)
• Is mankind a better designer than the original? (Are eyeglasses, heart pacemakers, insulin shots, artifical hips, incubators, etc., evidence of improvements mankind has made on the poor original design?)
• Is only one inhabitable pplanet in this solar system evidence of massive inefficiency on the part of the designer? (Is this worse than the typical government program?)
• Who designed the designer? (If the original designer didn't need to be designed, then why does anything else?)
• Are we made in the designer's image? If so, what does the designer need legs for?

Note that the purpose of these questions is not to persuade the IDiot that he's wrong, but rather to demonstrate (to your school board?) that the IDiot is trying to peddle religion dressed up as science.