Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
When their son Zachary came home from science class with a cross burned on his forearm It was not the religion that bothered his parents, but the injury to their child. They sued, and brought science v. creationism back into the courts for another round.
It was a little over three years ago, on December 20, 2005, that Judge John E. Jones III issued his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design was not science, but merely repackaged creationismand that it had no business in biology class.
The hoopla was immediate and enduring. Jones decision launched headlines across the globe, not to mention celebrations by the trials plaintiffs, their legal team and science experts (who send Merry Kitzmas greetings to each other on the anniversary).
For many, the Dover case became a cautionary tale of what can happen when a public school board believes its attempts to insert religion into the classroom can stand up to national attention and legal scrutiny.
But it would be a mistake to think that public school educators of fundamentalist faiths have made peace with science. Attacks on evolutionary education continue to take place out of the national spotlight, in small towns where people are reluctant to challenge the behavior of those clinging to power, and where teachers use their classrooms to proselytize to students away from the disapproving eyes of church-and-state watchdogs. They continue to preach intelligent design, the concept that lifes complexity demands a divine hand, and out-and-out Young Earth Creationism.
X Marks the Spot
Nowhere right now is this more apparent than in the small town of Gambier, Ohio, a place that bears a striking resemblance to the fictional town of Frank Capras Bedford Falls.
Here, in late September, just off a wide-spaced street that leads to the green campus of the liberal arts school of Kenyon College, a small-framed woman in dark sunglasses takes a seat at the local restaurant.
She is trying to pass unnoticed. Nervously, she nods to the owner of the establishment. Because she doesnt know who is on her side and whos not, Jenifer Dennis keeps her head down.
Only weeks later, Dennis would be forced to out herself publicly. But for now, she is trying to remain anonymous in order to protect her son Zachary from the inevitable recriminations from some who reside in the Mount Vernon School District in conservative south-central Ohio.
Last December she and her husband Steve accused a popular 8th-grade science teacher, John Freshwater, of using an electrostatic device known as a Tesla coil to brand a cross into Zacharys arm [see image above]. They say the burn, which in photos show an 8-by-4-inch mark on his forearm, raised blisters, kept their son awake that night, and lasted for several weeks.
At first glance, they saw the mark as a religious emblem. But their first concern was less about religion and more about what they considered to be a case of a teacher injuring their son.
Their accusations and their resulting lawsuit against the district have brought them criticism. A sign posted in a yard near their house read, The student goes. We Support Mr. Freshwater. The Bible stays!
For all the unusual elements to this story, this part is the strangest. At first, Jenifer and Steve were timid about pursuing legal action against the school district, fearing that they would be perceived as anti-Christian.
Theyre not.
We are religious people, they said in a statement after they filed suit in June. But we were offended when Mr. Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of our child. This was done in science class in December 2007, where an electric shock machine was used to burn our child.
Changing Stories: An X or a Cross?
The day after the incident, Jenifer and Steve met with the district Superintendent Stephen Short and showed him a photo of her sons burn. Jenifer recalls that she was told that Freshwaters use of the device was unacceptable and the district would investigate.
What took place over the next several months is not exactly clear. As is typical in these types of stories, there is much disagreement over who is on the side of truth. But some details have emerged.
The district hired an independent investigator. After a lengthy investigation in which Freshwater, other teachers, students, and administrators were all interviewed, the consultant concluded in a report that Freshwater had been teaching students that evolution is a lie for at least 11 years.
The report also said that Freshwater had witnessed to students, at one point telling them that there couldnt possibly be a genetic link to homosexuality because the Bible says it is a sin. The report also said that he handed out Bibles to members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and led them in prayers during school hours. Also, Freshwater said he had given a voluntary extra-credit assignment to students who watched Expelled, a documentary that argues teachers who believe in intelligent design are facing discrimination.
According to the report, Freshwater at first denied the incident. Later he admitted to the experiment, admitting he marked Zachary with an X. However, students interviewed for the investigation all described it as a cross.
The link to the full report is here.
In response to the investigation, Freshwater was told to remove all religious items from his room, including a poster of the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall, stickers with scripture on them, extra Bibles he kept in the back of the classroom, and the Bible that he kept on his desk.
In April, Freshwater, fearing disciplinary action, took his side of the story public. He never mentioned the branding incident. Rather he said it was because of the Bible on his desk.
Because he had refused to remove it, citing religious freedom under the First Amendment, he said he was being persecuted. Students organized a rally for him, bringing their Bibles to school in support. A Web site devoted to Freshwaters cause is called www.bibleonthedesk.com.
But Dennis said the issue was never about the Bible on the desk. And nowhere in the lawsuits initial complaint is it even mentioned.
Rather, she says, its because her son was branded.
After Freshwater took his side public, Jenifer said she and her husband were worried Freshwater wouldnt face disciplinary action. In June, they filed a lawsuit against Freshwater and the district for violating the First Amendments Establishment Clause by permitting religion to be taught in class, and for failing to protect their son. Federal law allows such civil liberties cases to be filed anonymously. Freshwater has filed a countersuit, citing defamation of character.
In July, the school board suspended Freshwater without pay based on the investigatory report, saying he had misused the electrical device, taught religion in his science class, and failed to follow district curriculum and rules.
Both sides are now awaiting the outcome of administrative hearing to determine whether he should be permanently fired. The hearings took place this fall and have been continued until January 6.
For now, while he waits for the outcome of the hearings, Freshwater is selling Christmas trees. Last week, he said he believes the district is retaliating against him because he advocated for critical analysis of evolution in 2003.
Theyve marked me as a religiousI dont know if I want to use this phrase about myselfbut as a religious fanatic, Freshwater said.
Freshwater is careful to say he doesnt object to all elements of evolutionary theory, but would simply like to raise some questions about it. He said that in the 21 years he has been a teacher, he has been using the Tesla coil on students, even though manufacturer instructions warn that it is not to be used on human skin. He said he has never had one complaint until now.
Freshwater said that there is no way to tell whether the photo presented by the Dennis family that shows the mark of a cross on a forearm was doctored, or whether it was even Zacharys arm.
When asked if he was accusing the family of lying, Freshwater said, Dont put words in my mouth.
While he admits using the device on Zachary, he said he didnt know if it left a mark.
Not Always a Rural Issue
Despite the gruesome elements, the story is less unusual than at first appears.
According to a poll published this spring in the Public Library of Science Biology, one in eight US high school teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution.
The poll, conducted by Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and his colleagues, also learned that 16 percent of teachers believe in creationism.
While Berkmans research did not address why so many teachers are creationists, he speculated in an e-mail that biology appeals to even fundamentalist Christians:
In Darwins day, most biologists felt that they had a calling to describe Gods works. So people of all faith traditions may be drawn to biology, including those whose faith includes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Clearly, a substantial percentage of them are unwilling to accept the geological, chemical, and genetic evidence for an old earth.
Jason Wiles, a Syracuse University biology professor whose research focuses on teaching issues related to biological evolution, said he frequently runs into creationists training to be educators.
Its not only in the South, or in rural areas, Wiles said.
Wiles recently held a workshop for 30 science teachers in the Syracuse city school system. Three of the teachers were actively interested in promoting intelligent design.
He suspects that the reason that so few cases make it to the public stage is that many parents arent always aware of whats going on in the classroom. Also, children are often unaware that the teacher has crossed a Constitutional line.
A lot of times students just dont know what their rights are, Wiles said.
Resolution Far Off
On that day in September, Jenifer Dennis had come to Gambier to meet one of the plaintiffs in the Dover case. I was giving a speech at Kenyon College that night about Dovers battle. Cyndi Sneath, one of the parents from Dover, had ridden out with me from Harrisburg.
As they sat down at the table, Sneath and Dennis began to compare notes, sharing common experiences. Dennis plopped a large file on the table that details the case and starts flipping through pages. She asked Sneath if she had initially realized how demanding and time-consuming being a plaintiff in a First Amendment case would be. Sneath told her she honestly had no idea what to expect.
At first, Jenifer Dennis said she couldnt tell if she was overreacting to her sons arm. I was thinking maybe Im crazy, she said. I was thinking maybe its something they do? And its OK?
Dennis and her husband are both Catholic. They are NASCAR fans who camp in an RV at races. Yet, they are being labeled as elitist and intolerant of religion. At one school board meeting in July, numerous parents and teachers spoke in defense of Freshwater and criticized the parents. One parent told the board, As a Christian, I dont accept the separation of church and state.
During the districts administrative hearing process, Freshwater successfully argued that Zacharys name be released publicly. So the anonymous status in the familys lawsuit has now become a moot point, and the recriminations that the family feared have begun with calls and letters.
But Dennis said she has also had friends and strangers come up to her and say that theyre glad they came forward. She said Zachary, who turned fifteen on Dec. 17, is handling the pressure.
But unlike in the Kitzmiller case, in which Sneath and 10 other parents sued the Dover school district, Jenifer Dennis still feels alone in her fight.
She is looking forward to a resolution in the case. When she started this battle a year ago, she never envisioned it would still be going on through another Christmas. I just need some closure, she said. But her lawsuit will no doubt drag on for much longer. The trial date is not until May 2010.
Tags: creationism, darwin, evolution, intelligent design
You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say this. I can not defend a strawman argument of your creation.
If your follow the content of my thread my **main** point is that macro-evolution is of little importance to working scientists and health professionals. Few of us spend more than a lecture or two on the topic.
Solution: Get government out of the k-12 business.
If secualr humanist godless liberals keep up their work, you'll find out first hand just how important an observation this is!
Look at Europe.
In parts of Europe it is the muslims who are pushing for Creationism in the schools - just like you want to do.
have yet to see a scientists support Big Government Public Schools. Can you provide provide links to those posts so I can educate myself?
You simply can’t be serious. Scientists also support big government grants into studying everything from medications to distant galaxies to trout reproduction.
I'm speechless.
“physical reality” -
notice, not even a nod to the idea that evidence of “physical reality” could be what is being misinterpreted.
For example, there once was an interpretation of physical reality that grain left in a box turns into mice.
Reality.
Again - can you provide links to scientist on this site supporting what you originally said they supported?
Good catch!
There is no transition that is a half assed bird or a poorly designed iguana in the variability between a human and a chimp.
Riiiight, we just need ga-jillions of years to see this.
Meanwhile:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and tweaks the reactions conditions just right do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
One need not be an evolutionist to understand how the theory is so full of holes.
Such paranoia can not be healthy.
Congratulations! Was this macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Big difference!
By the way, I, too, took **entire university courses** that involved micro-evolution. Macro-evolution ( the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. ) was **NEVER** discussed, except to classify something in its proper niche. In my introductory course in biology we spent about 20 minutes of class time on macro-evolution.
Apparently, the distinguished author of my daughter's college text for biology majors agrees with me. He included 4 to 5 pages of information on macro-evolution ( the possible processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.) This distinguish biologist apparently believes that this was quite enough for the typical university biology **major**.
I will admit that it has been 3 decades since **I** ( personally) took all these courses, and am willing to admit that things may have changed. I do ***know** though, and testify that my daughter's college level text of BIOLOGY MAJORS devoted a mere 4 or 5 pages to macro-evolution (the possible processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. ).
So?....What claim do you think I am making?
The **main** point of my posts is that few scientists ( and even biologists) are intimately working with macro-evolution( the processes needed for the **apperances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. ) and don't give it nano-second’s thought!
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.
*Some will choose an atheistic worldview and teach science in a materialist manner with secular humanist political, cultural, and religious consequences.
* Some will take the **exact same content** taught by the first group but teach it within a framework of a God-centered worldview. This too will have political and cultural consequences. ( I fall into this group and whattajoke **dares** to call **me** a creationist? UNBELIEVABLE!)
* And some will ignore macro-evolution completely. I don't agree with these people, but if their kids don't get this information it is not a lifetime catastrophe. They are not likely to need it for their life's work, and if they do, they can **easily** make up the difference with a course at a community college.
MOLECULAR evolution is about comparing disparate species DNA and estimating the time to a most recent common ancestor. As such it had everything to do with common descent of species (what you call “macro” evolution).
Entire courses in evolution and you don't know what molecular evolution entails? Were you asleep in class?
Pitiful comeback. Keep sticking your head in the sand. But I hope you liberals don't get what you're so desperate to achieve.
DO you needa link explaing the sky is blue, or that you need peanut butter and jelly to make a PBJ sandwich?
Explaining why the sky is blue in detail would take many pages of text.
Geeee....what an ENORMOUS waste of money! Any chance at getting a refund? Strike that...how about any chance of getting help from a de-programmer?
I use it to make money. Did you miss that or was your brain just unable to comprehend it?
Biology students learn evolution because it is useful in their career as biologists.
Creationism is not taught because it is of no scientific use at all to anybody.
While I agree that those **few** scientists who are actually engaged in studying the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species find RNA and DNA changes ***very*** useful, the rest of the scientific world could’t give a **twit** as to when anything emerged from the slime.
How many scientists are actually **doing** this work of investigating the emergence of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species find RNA ? Huh? A handful in the world?
The rest of the scientists of the world ( this even includes biologists) don't give a twit about estimating time back to to most common ancestor. It has **nothing** at to do with their daily scientific investigations.
Next, time a I see my daughter I will ask her if she still has her old college textbook of biology and science majors. I will get the author's name. You can write to him and ask him why he only allotted FOUR to FIVE pages to macro-evolution ( the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. )
I **personally*** am NOT rejecting macro-evolution (the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. )..but...I think we need some perspective here as to its importance. Evidently the author of daughter's college text gave it FOUR to FIVE pages.
The reason there are so many cat fights about this is government power and the government school's trampling of freedom of conscience. Get government out of the K-12 business and all this contention will fade away.
In a completely private system of K-12 schooling:
*Some will choose an atheistic worldview and teach science in a materialist manner with secular humanist political, cultural, and religious consequences. This would include the study of macro-evolution.
* Some will take the **exact same content** taught by the first group but teach it within a framework of a God-centered worldview. This too will have political and cultural consequences. This would include the study of macro-evolution.
* And some will ignore macro-evolution completely. I don't agree with these people, but if their kids don't get this information it is not a lifetime catastrophe. They are not likely to need it for their life's work, and if they do, they can **easily** make up the difference with a course at a community college.
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.