Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.
I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!
Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.
As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,
“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”
Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.
The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.
The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,
“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.
While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”
The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!
According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!
Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”
This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”
The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.
As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.
The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,
“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”
We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.
We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,
“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”
It's very simple: As an historical "science," it calls for things that are not directly testable. It calls for things that not only have never been directly observed, but which cannot be directly observed in principle.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
So, why do you impose scientific criteria on it?
And even if you are still misspeaking after all these years and calling speciation “evolution” - that too has been observed and is absolutely testable and predictable.
One need not see a star form from beginning to end to utilize the theory that stars form through gravity and nuclear fusion and make testable predictions based upon it.
One need not see the Grand Canyon form to know that erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain its formation and make testable predictions based upon it.
One need not see the Himalayas rise up into mountains to know and understand the forces causing it and make testable predictions based upon it.
And it IS different than the offering of a religion in that it is testable, useful, and explanatory and based upon known physical means rather than miraculous presupposition that is absolutely USELESS.
So, you do believe in miracles. (Sorry I am coming in so late on the thread.....I'll try to read and catch up.)
Do you think the stars forming out of gas clouds out in the galaxy are created by God? Are they any less created by God that our own Sun? Was our Sun created miraculously? If so such a formulation is useless - while supposing that it formed through natural forces is useful.
The Bible says I was created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I also know that I was created through cellular processes involving DNA.
Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?
Well then, you must be older than Methusaleh to have "observed" this (i.e., macroevolution) directly.
Congratulations on your late old age! This would make you — what? — about 4.7 billion years old???
May you live forever!
Evolution is a change in the DNA of a population.
It is directly testable and has been observed directly. In fact it is inevitable that DNA will change. Nothing is going to stop it.
Sorry that after all this time you still don't really know what evolution is or even what DNA is and how it does what it does.
Evolution is not speciation. And speciation has been observed and the consequences of speciation have been directly observed.
How do you even define macro-evolution?
Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a “micro” change or a “macro” change?
There is a very informative book entitled "The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease", by Stanbury,Wynngaarden, and Fredrickson. The book covers the entire spectrum of metabolic disease from diseases primarily manifested as disorders of carbohydrate metabolism to disorders of amino acid metabolism, to lipid metabolism, steriod metabolism, purine and pyrimidine metabolism, and on and on and on. One disease called Lesch-Nyhan syndrome is the manifestation of a genetic abberation of the complete lack of an enzyme of purine metabolism, hypoxanthine-guanine Phosphoribosyl-transferase. It results in the excess production of uric acid, and results in neurologic features, including self-mutilation, choreatheosis, spaciticityd, and mental retardation. This enzyme defect is due to a single genetic mutation. It is analogous to the mutation of the genetic 'defect' of the oft-dredged 'antibiotic' resistance mutation. Now there is no doubt that nosocomial infections are real. Pseudomonus aerougenosis and Staph come to mind. I have had to contend with those two more than I care to think about. But the point is these unfortunant people afflicted with Leysh-Nyan are people and Pseudomons is Pseudomonas. The same might be said of people who genetically are afflicted with Albinism, Juvenile Onset Diabetes (Type I), Phenylketonuria, Alcaptonuria, Hyperinsulinemia, Fabry's disease, Wilson's disease, and hundreds others....they are all conditions, the result of mutiation, and they are all Homo sapien
I think we need to step back to define life, truth, science, and another word which keeps being played like a palmed card, useless.
Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. Since all of science of cosmogony indisputably proves the universe began, and came to be from nothing, please tell us, in accordance to physical laws how hyrogen, oxygen, and carbon came to be. I would also ask if you would clarify for us if the early earth contained O2. If O2 is produced for the most part by photosynthesis how did O2 come to develope 20% of the earths atmosphere. Also regarding the early earth, please explain how O2 molecules could evade the profound effects of ultraviolet radiation on those O2 molecules.
So many questions. Are you really meaning to say that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) consists of 4 letters.. A,T,C, and G. Or did you mean those letters represent nucleotides. And if so, please tell us how chemical nucleotides convey this 'tangible information'. Would it be more accurate to express this 'tangible information' as the physical expression of information contained in the genetic code. If you agree with that expression, then how did chemicals 'tell' messenger RNA to move to ribosomes and produce a protein. Information -> Nucleic acid -> mRNA ->ribosome ->expression of information. Now, what is the physical makeup of information.
Are either of you aware that an amoeba has a genome up to one hundred times larger than a human being?
Typical moving of the goal post. I ask about sentience in bacteria and the behavior of a highly complex Eukaryote with a genome a hundred times larger than our own and many thousands of times larger than a bacteria is brought out as an example of supposed sentience.
One need not have sentience to display complex behavior based upon molecular interactions.
But it might help to understand those interactions if you know what DNA is and what it does.
It is easy to assume that everything is magical when you don’t have any idea how things actually work.
Look the word up in the dictionary. It makes your statement even more humorous. It also reminds me of Elaine Benis.
As you know biologists (atheist, physicalists, darwinists) have held to their dogma of strong physicalism and MUST deny epiphenomenalism. Once they go to epiphenominalism they have crossed the breach to the metaphysical. Yet to fail to embrace, at least, epiphenomenalism, is to refuse to acknowledge their own consciousness, logic, reason and rational thought. ( and much, much more). To be on the horns of that delima must be the metaphysical equivalent of an ivory enema (if you have ever ridden bulls, you know the joke).
As I look at your 3 sentences it seems the 1st sentence should, at least, come after sentence number 2 and 3....as regards to moving the goal posts.
Does DNA confer sentience and consciousness? No I am not aware of the comparative genomes of those two species.
Good! Progress! You differentiate sentience from behavior based upon molecular interactions. So....is sentience genetically determined?
As life evolved, as you determine, did it evolve to select for behavior which created an adaptive survival benefit? YOu will say yes. So...are adaptive responses always selected for truth? I cannot answer for you. Please answer. You will probably say NO. Is truth always an adaptive benefit? You will say No, I think.
Go ahead and answer....I do not want to steal your thunder.
The relationships in science/engineering and mathematics has allowed mankind to develop modernize and even define the world/universe we live in. I see no such events from the theory of evolution although it is interesting that humans and other creatures separately do change over time..
And in my post #143, I pointed out that it was in your post #137 that your qualifier signaled a “walking back” of a prior categorical assertion.
“Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.”
Not a credible statement; amd’s assertion is categorical: “creationism is useless.” Period. No qualifiers.
“So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.”
Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?
“Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood.”
Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising. In our society (Western Civilization), the prevailing attitude seems to be that wherever any other model exists, the Judeo-Christian Tradition must vacate.
Your original synopsis seemed to be that, besides scientific methodology, Creationism is useless for “cooking,” for “architecture,” for “musical composition.” I provided counter examples. You didn’t like them, suggesting the presence of other influences somehow negated the Judeo-Christian tradition. And, oh yeah, with “civil engineering” I had to confess a lack of an adequate rejoinder.
“You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said.”
The “Who, Me?” defense. I asked for clarification. What I receive is “Who? Me?”
“I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy”
Off again. “Who? Me?” You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.
“That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God”
On again. Which proves what? Are we back to the presence of any other entity vacates the Judeo-Christian?
“What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.”
It’s personal . . . and not to be discussed?
“How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research?”
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
“The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued.”
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK? The fact that a cure was developed well before the experiment’s conclusion notwithstanding, another “big moral lapse” that resided in the Tuskegee Experiment, at its inception, was the knowledge of the intense suffering the subjects (and their families) would endure in the disease’s advanced stages.
But . . . you know . . . eggs – omelette.
“So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?”
Which obviates . . . what?
“Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless.”
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
“I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general.
By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.
Now . . . put on your best wounded “Who, Me?”
So..you believe in miracles.
If one regresses the origin of the universe, yes the origin of the sun was supernatural.
I am reminded of a story told by J.P.Moreland. He said upon trying to answer a question he had asked what is she doing? She could have answered, "I am applying heat to a kettle of water and the energy is transferred through the copper bottom of a kettle, transferred to the water, the water molecules begin to move faster and faster until the surface tension of the water is broken and water molecules escape as gas into the atmosphere". OR, she could have just said, "I am heating water to make tea,...do you want some." Both answers, in context, are accurate.
Have you read "Signature In The Cell"? I think you would like it. I would enjoy getting your take on it.
As long as you have on rose colored glasses, make up rules for others that you can't possibly follow yourself. In short if you're a liberal you can most certainly observe it. ;)
Yada (or yadda): "used to indicate that further details are predictable or contextually evident from what has preceded."
As to Elaine Benes: She is "a fictional character on the American television sitcom Seinfeld (1989–1998), played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus."
I have never watched that show — except once, and found it so pointless and tiresome that I never returned.
Great catches, Texas Songwriter. Thank you oh so very much!
Are you saying that all virus particles are genetically altered to make a vaccine? It seems like that is what you are saying. Since you bring it up I am sure you are aware of attenuating the viral particles with a variety off attenuants...formaldehyde, certain mercury products, heat, etc. Are you genetically engineering all of these vaccines? Some are treated with certain chemical aduvants to augment the immune response in the person receiving the vaccine.
Is this how you support the claim of observing evolution? You are trying to pull a fast one on these readers. That is not fair. There are those who know of this type of sophistry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.