Testimony from a Dover School Board Member

There was a story in phillyburbs.com about the testimony of one of the Dover School Board members that had me shaking my head.

Without mentioning any names, this lady is reported to have made the following, to my mind almost unbelievable in their degree of ignorance, statements.

there was nothing wrong with using "Of Pandas and People" as a reference book because it doesn't make any references to God or the Bible.

Why would anyone expect a science textbook to mention God or the Bible? Why would anyone even think to check if a science textbook mentioned God or the Bible UNLESS one was trying to present religion under the guise of science? If I had ANY lingering doubts that the motives of the Dover School Board were religious, this statement eliminated them.

"acknowledged she didn't fully understand intelligent design, but knew it was another theory."

Are you using “theory” in the colloquial sense, because you’re certainly not using it in the sense of a “scientific theory?” Do you even understand the difference?

Do you often vote for something that you don’t fully understand? Don’t you think its incumbent upon you to UNDERSTAND the issues before voting on them? If you were too dimwitted to comprehend the question you could always have abstained. That would have been the honorable thing to do.

"I wanted our students to be made aware of other theories that are out there," she said. "I thought it would be good for education."

Same observation about what you mean by a “theory?” Do silly wild ass guesses qualify under your understanding of the word? Do you have ANY CLUE what a “scientific theory” is? Upon what were you basing your “thought” considering that every reputable science organization in the country has said ID is NOT science? Besides, if you couldn’t “fully understand” ID, what led you to believe that you had any conceivable notion of what would be “good for education?” Do you even have an education yourself? So far, from your statements, I see no evidence you ever got beyond the 4th grade.

When asked "Isn't it true that no board member explained or expressed how the change in curriculum would improve education at Dover High School?"

She responded, "I voted in my opinion what I thought was right."

And that opinion was based upon? You didn’t understand ID; you have no concept of science and you couldn’t even articulate a benefit to be accrued from the change in the curriculum, so what the hell was your conclusion that it “was right” based upon? Could it be because it lined up more closely with your religious beliefs? Could it be that you’re a liar as well as ignorant as burnt toast? Oh that wasn't a very nice thing to say. I'm so ashamed. That's ok though, I'll say an extra Hail Mary or two tonight to make up for it.

The really sad thing about this is she's probably not even embarressed by her scientific illiterancy and depth of sheer ignorance. I'll bet she's convinced she did the right thing and incensed, absolutely incensed that anyone would dare question it.

That people like this can get elected to school boards in this country is absolutely mind numbing. This country is beyond going to the dogs. Now where did I put that Amsterdam newspaper? I want to take another look at that apartment by the docks.

Oh yeah, one other thing. In the same article the Thomas More Law Center, the firm defending the Dover School Board, is quoted as saying that "its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians."

Now I have to admit that this confuses me a little bit (*cough, cough*). Can someone explain to me how this case has anything to do with the "religious freedom of Christians?" Here I thought it was a matter of "academic freedom." The "academic freedom" to confuse students getting their first taste of real science about what constitutes science and the scientific method. How does this relate to the "religious freedom of Christians" UNLESS one believes that Evolution is an assault upon Christianity and ID acts as its defender in the science classroom?

Two points. The first is that IF Evolution were in fact an assault upon Christianity, which of course it isn't, teaching it would be unconstitutional because in the United States, government must, according to the "Neutrality Test," be neither an ally nor an adversary of religion. Teaching Evolution is not illegal because it is in fact neutral toward any religion including Christianity.

The second point is if you have any doubt about my first point, consult with the Roman Catholic Church which has, quite maturely and wisely, made its peace with Darwin.