Creationism Makes Its Mark

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.

Teacher John Freshwater and the brand on the arm of his student

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 creationism—and 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 trial’s 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 life’s 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 Capra’s 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 doesn’t know who is on her side and who’s 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 Zachary’s 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.

They’re 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 son’s burn. Jenifer recalls that she was told that Freshwater’s 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 couldn’t 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 Freshwater’s cause is called www.bibleonthedesk.com.

But Dennis said the issue was never about the Bible on the desk. And nowhere in the lawsuit’s initial complaint is it even mentioned.

Rather, she says, it’s because her son was branded.

After Freshwater took his side public, Jenifer said she and her husband were worried Freshwater wouldn’t face disciplinary action. In June, they filed a lawsuit against Freshwater and the district for violating the First Amendment’s 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.

“They’ve marked me as a religious—I don’t know if I want to use this phrase about myself—but as a religious fanatic,” Freshwater said.

Freshwater is careful to say he doesn’t 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 Zachary’s arm.

When asked if he was accusing the family of lying, Freshwater said, “Don’t put words in my mouth.”

While he admits using the device on Zachary, he said he didn’t 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 Berkman’s research did not address why so many teachers are creationists, he speculated in an e-mail that biology appeals to even fundamentalist Christians:

In Darwin’s day, most biologists felt that they had a calling to describe God’s 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.

“It’s 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 aren’t always aware of what’s going on in the classroom. Also, children are often unaware that the teacher has crossed a Constitutional line.

“A lot of times students just don’t 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 Dover’s 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 couldn’t tell if she was overreacting to her son’s arm. “I was thinking maybe I’m crazy,” she said. “I was thinking maybe it’s something they do? And it’s 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 don’t accept the separation of church and state.”

During the district’s administrative hearing process, Freshwater successfully argued that Zachary’s name be released publicly. So the anonymous status in the family’s 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 they’re 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

Lauri Lebo has been a journalist for twenty years. As part of an investigative reporting team, she helped solve two civil rights-era murders. As the York Daily Record’s education reporter, she covered intelligent design’s First Amendment battle. The winner of numerous state and national awards, she lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“You can argue all day about how things should be, but reality says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.”

That is NOT at all what the framers intended.

Below is a snippet from an article I wrote on the imagined “wall” of separation. I will post the whole thing if you wish to know more about how millions of modern folks have come to the same wrong conclusion as you. I particularly love the “germ of dissolution” quote. Kinda like the Theory of DEVOLUTION at least as it relates to American culture:

...Jefferson was also a political prophet predicting the condition we find ourselves in today. His (and other Founders’) fear of “tyranny” and “despotism” coming from the judicial branch are now reality despite their efforts to make it the weakest branch. The Supreme Court now lords over the legislative and executive branches, the states and individuals in ways never intended by Jefferson who said:

“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

“To consider the [SC] judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”

Fortunately, Lincoln did not allow one of the worst usurpations of power when the supremes ruled in Dred Scott (1857) that “a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a state of the United States.” Honest Abe ignored the ruling which violated God’s “natural law” and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And Congress passed the 13th amendment despite the supreme morons.

And UNfortunately, the court’s theft of power was complete by the time Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a disgusted dissenting opinion (Jaffree), reminisced about our fist President George. Washington, on the very day the First Amendment passed Congress and at their behest, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” Wrote Rehnquist regarding that event: “History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or...the Court...which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Well....To be completely **honest** scientist would say:

” The theory isn't holding up in “X,Y, and Z” areas. We need to 1) change our approach, or 2) attempt to find an explanation that is **rational** and scientifically based. “

At this point the philosophers and theologians could speculate all they want. In his off-time the scientist could be a philosophical and religious as he wanted too.

I will give 2 examples:

As I posted earlier, my husband was hired to be a biochemist. He did exactly that because that was his contract, his word, and his agreement, with the company. If he had brought theology to the application and analysis of his job that would have been stealing the company's time. At work he seriously tried to give his **work** his full attention as a **biochemist**!.

Yet,....I **know** that he was personally was **very** prayerful over all his projects, and prayed often for inspiration and guidance in his profession.

( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)

In my own profession, my patients were paying me for my full **professional** attention. Also, the doctor patient relationship is not one of equal power. I would have been stealing the patients time and money to have engaged in religious discussion and I would have been abusing my position of power. However,....As my down time in my office permitted, I prayed over every one of my patients, and I believe that is why many patients commented how comfortable they felt in my office.

( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)

In conclusion:

If a scientist agrees to work as a scientist, then he needs to bring the full force of his scientific training to the job. If “X Y or Z” doesn't fit he needs to start looking for a rational and scientific reason for why it is not.

An **honest** scientist would say, “These areas are not making sense. We're looking into why it isn't.” He should **not** be speculating about God because that is **not** the job he was contracted to do. To do so would be stealing the company, school, or research lab's time and money.

If certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution break down and don't make statistical or rational sense then and **honest** scientist would start looking for a rational reason why “X, Y, or Z” exists, and **admit** that in the areas of “X, Y, or Z” do not conform to the theory.

And honest scientist would NOT drum out of the profession a scientist who rightly said, “Hey! Look guys! “X, Y, and Z” don't fit and aren't making any sense!”

Scientists must **not** seek to use science to affirm the existence of God. Doing that would not be the scientific method. Two things could happen scientifically and theologically:

1) In being so determined to prove intelligent design the scientist would be misusing his profession and possibly even overlook a part of the natural world God DID create!

God does not want us to misuse our talents.

2) On the theological and philosophical level, the scientist would be building a Tower of Babel. Any scientist who thinks they can **prove** God exists is overreaching in an extreme way.

A religious scientists needs to stick to the job of science. Let the natural world be revealed through his work, and trust that God's presence and wonder will be revealed in it due time.

”Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christian fundamentalists.”

Most? Really? Who, and how many, do you count as “founding”? What comprises “most”? Have you an x number out of the total that describes the “most” who were Deists? What do you mean by “fundamentalists”? As a term of common art, “fundamentalist” came into popular usage in the late 1970s when many Christians came to understand the necessity of organizing for political self-defense. Earlier the term was used from time to time as part of the narrative surrounding the events encompassing the First and Second Great Awakenings and the other religious revivals that swept through America from the 1730s right on to the 1930s.

Aside from that alleged vast majority of Deists, what were the religious denominations of those pitifully few Founders who were Christian? You have quite a choice to select from: Methodist, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Baptist, German Reformed, Episcopal (High, Low, and Broad), Quaker, and even some Catholic (plus surely one or two more I’ve overlooked). Of these, which ones would you consider “fundamentalist”? All were profoundly impacted by the waves of religious revivalism mentioned above, save Episcopal, Quaker, and Catholic who were little affected or not at all.

”The Bill of Rights does contain the Establishment clause and, even though the words “separation of CHurch and State” are not specifically there, the meaning is clear that the government cannot favor any religion.”

What do you mean “government cannot favor”? Can you be a little more specific? Here, let me help by providing some examples that you can pass on, yea or nay:

a) An association of Christian students holds regular club meetings after school, and are allowed to use school facilities. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?

b) Four separate Christian congregations have no place to hold their Sunday services, so county government permits them the use of its court house for a joint service, each denomination taking a week to lead the service. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?

c) The Federal government permits church services to be held in some of its buildings, including the state department and in the capitol itself. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?

d) The governing body of a state university decides that it will permit their students to hold morning devotionals before class, and to provide meeting places in the university’s lecture halls. Furthermore, the governing body also decides to permit any divinity schools located in the vicinity to use the same halls for Sunday services. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?

Finally, in the context of the 1st Amendment, what, specifically, does the term establishment mean?

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.