@Leadfoot,
Quote: I'm waiting to see the actual school board policy before I accept that as the case
Youre skating again. SChool board "policies" are often not written and only come about as the schoolboard minutes record some comment about these "policies" in a meeting. Only then will there become some written "rules"
If you would read the history of the Dover case, you will know everything that had happened, how the school board voted to adopt the "ID policy" and how, after the case was in the deliberation phase, how an elwction was able to remover the ID proponents from the elected board.
IT WAS THE BOARD that initially began the whole ID issue. Board member Alan Bonsell had represented a new bunch of incoming Evangelical citizens and had introduced the concept of "Cretionism" and school prayer at consecutive annual Board "Retreats". Bonsell had worked himself to become the head of "Curriculu Dover's "curriculum and textbook committees" in 2003 and then was elected board president in 2004. People described him as "driven in those tasks".
In early 2004 Bonsell had several other board members < individuals who apparently straddled a fence about this issue, visit with the science faculty to announce that Bonseel wished to achieve some "balance" in the cience curricula.
The board members were clear in that they never mentioned the word "C reationism" but the science faculty, (in later testimony, all knew what was being pitched)
Funny that Bonsell didnt propose a "balance" based upon a Buddhist view of creation, or American Indian . He wanted a Genesis based view of creation as featured in King James's Bible, especially the"
In the Beginning... part.
There was NO directives or written policy, just initimidation and verbal threats that were never recorded. In spring of 2004, the bord nnounced to the faculty that they expected some changes in teaching about evolution were expected. FACULTY members were the first to take exception. They told the board that, because of all the new Fundamentalist nd Evangelical churches that had recently "resettled" to the Dover area, the science faculty had already taught an abbreviated version of Darwin's theory and follow on evidence. They were sensitive of the rising Evangelicalism in the surrounding townships. They clearly taught what was in the new Pa stndards for science education , but not a FULL version. The faculty wanted to teach what was fact but not get the parents of many new students all riled.
In fact, several teachers had actually abandoned some popular sections of thei classes that included such things as a detailed analysis of "What is Cience", in which the kids would research and discuss several concepts like "Hypothesis" ,"Theory" and "peer review" .
This annual excercise was used in a colloquium involving several classes of science. The kids loved it but it was abandoned because the bord had begun to use more nd more intimidqtion in "overseeing" the "appropriateness " of these excercises.
NOW, in your world, you want to see the "BOARD POLICY" about all the goings on. Prhaps its in the board minutes but I think not. Noone like to lave a paper trail especially when board intimidation can be forensically (QAll that Im discussing appears in the court record as direct and cross testimony after the actual case was over.
Several other things happened in aclear sequence, most of which left no Board "policy" trails, or if they did, you know damned well how "minutes" can be scrubbed so they are often minimalist and innocuous in appearnace.
Like when Bonsell became the Board Chairman, he sought out an "Appointed Board Member" to fill his vacancy (rather than wait for an election cycle). He found another cronie named William Buckingham who Bonsell had "promoted" to the curriculum chairmanship (the minutes of the trnsaction merely state that "Buckingham agreed to fill the vacancy as member AND CHAIR in a standing Board committee". He was conferred by vote , (where a quorum had barely been reached ).
The case that ensued was one of treachery, fraud, and, as Judge Jones stated, was rife with "Illegality" "Self dealing" and, BREATHLESS INANITY"
The Discovery Intitute had latched on to Dover early, and similrly, had learned that this case was NOT winneable as such because (I think) they too began seeing that most of the characters involved were a bunch of clowns. Discovery, saw this as a way to ascend the isue to the US Supreme Court in order to wrest the
Edwards... decision out of the LOSE column.
Discovery Institute... once it had latched on to the case, almost immediately began to do an about face and tried to convince all their members (who had signed up as defense witnesses) to reconsider and have "Urgent needs to get a haircut" on the trial dates. They would remove much of their support(but not all) from the Thomas More center (the chosen lawyers). However, everal DI "experts", most noteably, Dr Michael Behe, felt they could do a compelling testimony job and "Scientifially support" ID in court.
It was a bloody disaster for ID. At best, they came off looking like paleo-fools, and at worst, they looked like sincere believers in Merlin and Sorcery.
Dr Behe, when in cross, stated that the supernatural will ultimately be evidenced as true science. When purued with the obvious follow-up "HOW WOULD THIS BE DONE"?
he folded and lwft the box, a bit less tall in scientific stature( Behe has been a very important researcher in molecular Biology for years).
He was a tenured professor at Lehigh and (he still is), but the University then issued a "policy statement" that the U does not necessarily endorse the personal beliefs of tenured faculty-in the spirit of full disclosure and freedom of expression by faculty" The U never "got on Behe". Im ure he was looked at as if he had a huge koqla on his hwad for severql semesters but I assume hes pretty much "lived it down" by now.
I know hes now a board Member of The Discovery Institute (apparently they, like some other organizations give " reward and respect" to someone who is a "Stand -up guy"
Sorry for flapping but I just wanted to give you a "heads-up" that much of what has been considered "POLICY" by th Doverschool board during that time, was only discovered by investigative reporters who looked at board minutes and trial record and conducted detailed interviews of the living.
