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
Most people know little or nothing about biology.
The first cell may or may not have been a unique event. The first three billion years of life are erased.
Oh. The Lutherans. How could I forget the Lutherans, and their participation in the great revival movements of Colonial and Revolutionary America. My apologies to any Lutherans who frequent this forum.
What do you know about science or biology? What field is your degree in?
John seemed to "get" the metaphorical tone and intent of Jesus.. Could be not all apostles "got it"(fully).. Surely Saul(Paul) got it..
I know many christians that don't seem to get the metaphorical nature of most of scripture.. I call them "literal" christians.. Don't mean they are not christians just "thicker" ones.. Surely non believers are gobsmacked by scriptural metaphors.. which was the main intent I suppose..
Well then, if my example is a strawman, why don’t you show me what a science that incorporated God would sound like?
See post #226 for an understanding.
Being a Christian yourself it shoudn’t be that threatening!
Well then, if my example is a strawman, why don’t you show me what a science that incorporated God would sound like?
See post #226.
It shouldn’t even be that threatening to a Christian!
I don't have to look it up becaue I already understand it's not an answer...the first asexual organism sprang to life all by itself...
HOW AGAIN?
Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time and we all benefit from it. Ditto for politicians, philosophers, mathematicians, Joe-six-packs, etc.
Scientists calling an argument from a non-scientist (e.g. mathematician, philosopher, theologian, etc.) ipso facto "anti-science" is unseemly in a country founded on freedom of speech.
Besides, if we were to build a tree of inquiry like the tree of life - it would become obvious science branched from philosophy and that mathematics is closer to its philosophical roots.
Biology is the study of life. And yet if you ask "what is life v. non-life/death in nature?" the answers from biologists will be mostly descriptive, e.g. properties of living organisms.
The ones focused on what life and non-life/death "is" not just what it looks like will be mostly theologians, philosophers, mathematicians and physicists.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what your point is. I just meant that it's no big deal to me whether we call your statement "anti-science" or not. As for the rest, I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of philosophy and free speech. All I'm saying is that the reclassification of Pluto is not a case of science being "wrong."
“...Could be not all apostles “got it”(fully)..”
With all due respect, I believe you might be misinterpreting the four different aspects of the life of Christ recorded in the four gospels.
John did not “get it” more clearly than did Matthew, Mark and Luke. While the gospels have many similarities and record some of the same events, each is geared to a specific aspect of His life. All four generally cover the four great points of the gospels - the presentation of the King, the declaration of His Kingdom, the rejection of the King and the rejection of His Kingdom - but from different perspectives.
Matthew emphasizes the presentation of Christ as Jehovah’s King which is why his gospel starts with “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ...” and continues with the royal genealogy from Abraham thru David and on down the line to Christ. Many sections peculiar to this gospel are mostly related to the King and the Kingdom.
Mark emphasizes Christ as Jehovah’s Servant as noted, for example, by the fact that in the other gospels Christ is addressed by individuals as “Lord” many times yet only twice (both mistranslations in KJ) in Mark.
Luke emphasizes Christ as Jehovah’s perfect Man which is why, for example, it details the pre-natal section of Christ’s life. This includes the best biblical account of why a person is considered by God to be alive in the womb (when the fetus now known as John the Baptist acknowledges the recently conceived Christ as pregnant Mary visits her preggo cousion Elisabeth) rather than a simple ‘non-viable tissue mass’ as liberal abortion-lovers would claim. It is also why Luke is the one to present the human genealogy from Christ back to Adam.
John emphasizes Christ as Jehovah Himself, Divine. To finish your quote of John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Christ is the living Word (Logos in the ancient Greek) which is why it is capped. Also, speaking of metaphors, I can’t help but think of some of the hardcore EVOs when I continue a few verses down to read “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
Obviously, the bible is full of metaphor, figures of speech, types, analogies, symbolism, etc. But detailed knowledge of the OT and various prophesies referencing the different aspects of “The Branch” (Christ) are required to fully understand the uniqueness of the four gospels and their overall harmony.
Also, Paul, as I’m sure you know was not an apostle or even a disciple while Christ walked the Earth in the flesh. He was rather violently chosen later by the risen and ascended Christ to perform a three-fold ministry - to the Jew, to the Gentile and to the authorities of his time. Before that, while the other apostles were personally witnessing the life of Christ, Paul was a zealous Jew and a sworn and effective enemy of the Lord Jesus.
The "apostles" CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas.. which was a mistake.. The Holy Spirit chose Saul to be an Apostle.. as Paul said he did.. For it was the Holy Spirits authority to choose an apostle.. not man.. A tree is known by its fruit..
“The “apostles” CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas.. which was a mistake.. The Holy Spirit chose Saul to be an Apostle..”
I’m not sure what your point could be. Certainly you don’t believe they should have chosen their (at the time) enemy Paul instead of Mattias.
... or could have been several independent complex self-replicating protein systems that increased its chain complexity, in stages, and some of them clashing with others to exchange parts of their molecular structure. Prions, which are essentially complex proteins, behave this way.
“The “apostles” CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas...”
I neglected to mention that I don’t think you understand the selection process which occurred in Acts 1. It was not the apostles that “CHOSE” Matthias.
And what the heck are you implying by saying “a tree is known by its fruit..”?
Mattias did little or nothing, Saul(Paul) did very much..
“Mattias did little or nothing, Saul(Paul) did very much..”
To be sure, Paul was quite prolific.
But I’m sorry you find the Lord’s choice of Matthias a disappointment.
Mattias was chosen by men.. as scripture(NT) suggests..
When men take the Holy Spirit out of the loop.. the loop becomes a renegade church.. or Sheep Pen(John ch 10).. that the Shepard must call the Sheep "out of".. and has been doing for almost 2 thousand years..
I agree with what you said, but I would apply your statements about not trying to prove that God exists equally to not trying to prove he does not exist. Darwins theory in its original form attempts to do so by assuming life springs forth on its own from the elements. He was unaware of the “intelligent machinery” of DNA, RNA, etc. We now know more the Darwin did, yet continue to have scientists try to prove his theory when its is all but disproved, almost entirely as a means of rejecting creationism.
When the theory breaks down, its time to find a better theory, not mislead to continue the politically correct one. If scientist want to continue to search for the missing fossil links, fine. But to not point out the holes in Darwin is disengenous.
The discoveries of DNA/RNA mechanisms seem more in line with an intelligent design theory. The remaining question is: does one believe that some extraterrestrial life that spring forth all on its own from the early elements could evolve on its own to create “intelligent life” for us here on Earth, or was intelligent life here on Earth created by God? Here is where my faith guides my common sense on this issue.
But again, I am an engineer, not an evolutionary theory scientist.
I agree with what you said, but I would apply your statements about not trying to prove that God exists equally to not trying to prove he does not exist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I completely agree.
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.