Freshwater: Hearing documents up at NCSE

Thanks as always Richard, I think this will take a while!

I couldn't read the Freshwater reply to BOE carefully because it made my head hurt. It was nothing more than a diatribe, a lengthy rambling and repetitive diatribe. It had the same tone of the more crazy rambling religious screeds you see on the Internet where they equate Obama with the Antichrist or explain how the book of revelation clearly shows the apocalypse is near. It's more like street corner preaching and not the kind of writing expected in a hearing like this.

Mr. Freshwater’s one hundred and sixty six page brief is long on scurrilous personal attacks and short on supporting facts and law. Much of his brief contains arguments and statements that are irrelevant to the issues before this Referee. Therefore, this reply will attempt to address only those misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and misapplications that are germane to the termination of his teaching contract.

I greatly enjoyed reading the Board's response to Freshwater/Hamilton's crap Summary Brief.

Cowabunga! the "Freshwater Reply to BOE" is freaking 5.56 meg's.

That will wait until tomorrow.

The Board’s Brief sets forth that Mr. Freshwater understood exactly what was to be removed and need not be repeated here. No amount of tap dancing will permit Mr. Freshwater to escape the natural consequences of his decision. No attempt to shirk his responsibilities under the Establishment Clause will permit him to blame the administration for his own conduct. Plain and simple, Mr. Freshwater engaged in insubordination when he repeatedly failed to adhere to the directives of his supervisors. As such, Mr. Freshwater may be lawfully terminated based upon “good and just cause.”

Just reading through the freshwater closing brief and this is the foot note on page 5

[quote]17 Employee Exhibit 148, pgs. 45-46, the words “make a point” were never used by John Freshwater nor the
inquisitioners from HR on Call, Inc.[/quote]

inquisitioners? HR on Call, Inc has specialized training in interrogation and torture?

Without question, the seeming ability and resources of a BOE in comparison to that of a singular teacher in this context creates a resource gap between the teacher and BOE that is as vast as that of David versus Goliath

Without question, the seeming ability and resources of a BOE in comparison to that of a singular teacher in this context creates a resource gap between the teacher and BOE that is as vast as that of David versus Goliath

So we wait for the referee decision and report, then what happens?

Can you give us an idea as to what will happen if the decision goes either direction?

Thanks for the excellent reporting.

Somehow I think the outcome is going to be slightly less favorable for poor little David this time around. After all, he ran up and kicked the giant in the shins, then spit on him. When he was asked politely to stop, he started screaming and crying, then hired someone to scream and cry with him. Then he realized that all he had was a tesla coil and not a stone to be found anywhere. Needless to say, the giant was not amused. I'm sure he still thinks that god is on his side and will come along to save him at the last minute. But if that is true, why does he keep delaying the last minute?

DS said: Somehow I think the outcome is going to be slightly less favorable for poor little David this time around. After all, he ran up and kicked the giant in the shins, then spit on him. When he was asked politely to stop, he started screaming and crying, then hired someone to scream and cry with him. Then he realized that all he had was a tesla coil and not a stone to be found anywhere. Needless to say, the giant was not amused. I'm sure he still thinks that god is on his side and will come along to save him at the last minute. But if that is true, why does he keep delaying the last minute?

from the BOE response to Freshwater's statement

VII. CONCLUSION
“A teacher affects eternity, he can never tell where his influence stops.” The Education of Henry Adams, Chapter XX, Henry Adams, 1905 (The Project Guttenberg, Jan. 2005). As our educators have a broad and enduring effect, it is imperative the rights of the students left in their charge are guarded with vigor and diligence. John Freshwater taught in Mount Vernon Middle School for twenty-one years. He accepted an enormous responsibility to educate, protect and guide thousands of students. Mr. Freshwater failed to live up to his responsibility:
• Mr. Freshwater engaged in religious advocacy and promoted his Christian faith until he was removed from the classroom after the 2007-20008 school year;
• Mr. Freshwater improperly used a Tesla Coil to burn 500-600 students and put them in harm’s way;
• Mr. Freshwater exceeded his role as a monitor of the FCA by participating in its activities rather than serving as a non-participant; and
• Mr. Freshwater intentionally and publicly refused to follow legitimate directives of his supervisors, engaging in gross insubordination.
Each one of these actions constitutes good and just cause for the termination of Mr. Freshwater’s employment with the Mount Vernon City School District.

the 1st, 2nd and 4th points Freshwater ADMITTED to (or admitted to facts that support the conclusions of the 1st 2nd and 4th points) in his own testimony - obviously he's clueless that doing these things (and admitting it) WILL cost him his job. Was it Lennie Flank who said -" just let a creationist keep talking, he'll eventually hang himself" or something like that?

I can't wait for the civil cases :)

OK!

I am so glad I waited to read the Freshwater response to the BOE Summary Brief until this morning. There is much humor. For example, the opening statment that:

Representatives For The Board Of Education Have Lost Their Way

"The weak gravamen of the allegations against John Freshwater becomes patently obvious when reading the Post-Hearing Brief for Mount Vernon City School District. But the blatant disregard for the most basic elements of justice, fairness, the law and ethics, demonstrates representatives for the board of education (BOE) have completely lost their way in the misguided approach to presenting its arguments in the work product submitted on behalf of the employer.

The writer(s) of the BOE's post-hearing brief shows they are foolhardy, or possess an
impression that John Freshwater and the undersigned would not recognize a gross violation of established law regarding ex post facto application of succeeding law, violations of R.C. 3319.16 requiring specification of any violation by the legislative body of the BOE and improper injection of materials into their BOE's post-hearing brief."

is followed by Hamilton's warning to the referee not to be taken in by:

Fallacy of question-begging epithet: When emotional, inflammatory language is used in lieu of actually proving something, the author is hoping that the reader will respond in a hysterical impulsive manner without actually evaluating the merits."

It makes Baby Jesus cry.

I have not been able to find a copy of the BoE termination letter to Freshwater sent in July, 2008.

Does anyone have a link ot the PDF?

I hope that there are some outcomes/ messages sent as a result of this:

Teachers - YOU CAN LOSE YOUR CAREER/PENSION if you proselytize in class - don't do it

administrators- Your district can lose millions of $$ in administrative /court costs + other liabilities if you let your teachers proselytize in class - don't let them!

Unfortunately, the lesson school administrators are likely to learn is, if you have a proselytizing teacher and you try to fire him, it will cost your district millions. Don't try it. And the lesson to the bible-pounding teachers is, the administration can't afford to pay for the legal troubles you can cause if they take any action against you, so OK class, bow your heads while we all pray to Jesus.

The Board summary ends with this well-known quote:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and
again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose... "

Mr. Freshwater obviously lied a few hundred times during the proceedings, as evidenced by his own conflicting stories. He went as far has forging "notes".
His lawyer is just as worse.

When I read Hamilton's writing, I am struck at how similar it is to creationist writing in general- tortured logic, shifting meaning of words, unsupported assertions, and impugning the motivation and morality of others.

And, I wonder if they really are that crazy.

Flint said: Unfortunately, the lesson school administrators are likely to learn is, if you have a proselytizing teacher and you try to fire him, it will cost your district millions.

The absolute crazy is in "D. Response to Insubordination" where Hamilton claims that it was the Administration's responsibility to physically remove the objectionable religious displays from Freshwater's classroom.

"Instead of making corrective efforts, the Administrators, Principal White and Superintendent Steve Short, suborned insubordination in gross dereliction of duty and abuse of power." Page 69, JOHN FRESHWATER'S REPLY BRIEF TO THE EMPLOYER'S POST-HEARING
BRIEF

See? They made Freshwater be insubordinate! It wasn't his fault at all! Those evil Administration devils did it. It's their fault!1!1!one! They suborned him, and that is dirty.

It will depend on the results of the termination hearing and civil trial.

Flint said:

It will depend on the results of the termination hearing and civil trial.

OK, I wasn't aware that IF Freshwater loses the termination hearing, nobody has to pay for it. But I remain dubious. I'm still under the impression that somebody has to pay for all that, and Freshwater clearly doesn't have a million dollars. Hamilton probably doesn't either. Would the money come from the insurance company rather than the taxpayers? Which means, ultimately, from those who pay insurance premiums?

Flint said: Unfortunately, the lesson school administrators are likely to learn is, if you have a proselytizing teacher and you try to fire him, it will cost your district millions. Don't try it.

And the lesson to the bible-pounding teachers is, the administration can't afford to pay for the legal troubles you can cause if they take any action against you, so OK class, bow your heads while we all pray to Jesus.

JRE said:

Flint said:

It will depend on the results of the termination hearing and civil trial.

OK, I wasn't aware that IF Freshwater loses the termination hearing, nobody has to pay for it. But I remain dubious. I'm still under the impression that somebody has to pay for all that, and Freshwater clearly doesn't have a million dollars. Hamilton probably doesn't either. Would the money come from the insurance company rather than the taxpayers? Which means, ultimately, from those who pay insurance premiums?

Someone will pay for it - without a doubt. There are hundreds of students (a few of which are my children) paying for it right now as summer school was greatly scaled back, full-day K can't be afforded, etc. I think the point that was being made was that the termination hearing is the first step. Losing his job doesn't change a thing for him other than his insurance is no longer covered by the board. The real hurt will be in federal court if and when the civil cases are also found against him. Yes, the school system lost a lot of money, but nothing in comparison to what Mr Freshwater may well lose through the civil cases.

How can we count the number of proselytizing teachers there are in public schools across the country. Would anyone hazard even a ballpark estimate? Might it be in the thousands? Tens of thousands? Here where I am in the bible belt, it's (perhaps much like Mount Vernon) common, accepted, even encouraged. People here would be horrified if anyone suggested that Jesus doesn't belong in science class. Jesus belongs everywhere, at all times!

But we can count the number of legal cases arising from such proselytizing. Let's see, there was one in Dover, and how here's another one. Yes, the fundamentalists lost in Dover and will probably lose here. And how many such cases are NOT being brought? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Why not? Is it possible that the sheer monetary COST of bringing such a case discourages any administrations?

And I may be cynical, but I don't think this case would have come to a head except that Freshwater was physically injuring his students. If he was only preaching at them, this wouldn't have even started. Hey, he's even been burning studends (and proselytizing like mad) for 20 years or more. Finally one individual chose to make a public complaint so conspicuous that they couldn't sweep it under the rug.

I suggest it's possible that thousands of administrations have looked at Dover, and are watching this case, and counting the money, and deciding not to take any action that might lead to litigation or other expensive procedures.

As for these astronomical sums Freshwater will lose, where might they come from? I write a check to my wife for a million dollars every year on her birthday. Do you suppose she's rich, or I'm suffering terrible losses?

As for enforcing the rules with strict consistency, not allowing the fundamentalists to get away with anything (knowing they will PUSH to get away with a little more, and then a little more), this reminds me of Aesop's fable about the mice agreeing to put a bell on the cat - but not being able to agree about who should do it. Why is weeding fundamentalists out of school administations going to be so much easier than weeding them out of the ranks of teachers?

Among creationists, there is tacit agreement that their JOB, according to the Will of an Angry God, is to preach to children. As we saw in the Leonard case, the creationists were willing to jeapordize their jobs, the reputation of their employer, the educational system of their entire state, whatever it took (and it took weaseling, deceit, rule-breaking, etc.) Jesus DEMANDS this of them.

I'm of the firm opinion that the only reason Freshwater and the other fundy teachers and the administration haven't been even more flagrant over the years isn't so much fear of legal costs, as fear that the courts would shut their efforts down altogether. They seem to see themselves as the Jesus Underground doing everything possible to subvert the Godless Liberals who are trying to yank Jesus out of their lives by the roots. There really is a culture war going on here.

Yeah, Freshwater is a martyr now, to the degree that fundy funding can buy him into that role. But in much of the US, he's pretty normal.

Flint said: But we can count the number of legal cases arising from such proselytizing. Let's see, there was one in Dover, and how here's another one. Yes, the fundamentalists lost in Dover and will probably lose here. And how many such cases are NOT being brought? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Why not? Is it possible that the sheer monetary COST of bringing such a case discourages any administrations?

I suggest it's possible that thousands of administrations have looked at Dover, and are watching this case, and counting the money, and deciding not to take any action that might lead to litigation or other expensive procedures.

As for enforcing the rules with strict consistency, not allowing the fundamentalists to get away with anything (knowing they will PUSH to get away with a little more, and then a little more), this reminds me of Aesop's fable about the mice agreeing to put a bell on the cat - but not being able to agree about who should do it.

See the update in the OP.

eric said: Senior administrators are responsible for making sure Principals know and follow the rules, Principals are likewise responsible for making sure teachers know and follow the rules. Cat belled.

RBH said: See the update in the OP.

But a lack of court cases is really really weak evidence of your claim of administrative cowardice. Because a much simpler explanation is: a lack of unresolved parental complaints.

Well, since we probably should wait a while to discuss the hearing documents, here is a video about the up-coming Texas Board of Education elections that is worth a look;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWop2lj0UgU

PS: Flint, we can take up the message at a later date.

The documents are no longer on the NCSE site, but they are now on the Accountability In The Media site.

I can tell you, from deep in the Bible belt, that the parents that oppose such rot are sometimes too frightened to object. If you take on the school system when they inject religion into science class (and most of them where I live do) these nice Christians burn your house, poison your pets, slash your tires and essentially make it necessary to move away. Who wants to put your family through that?

Just out of curiosity, do you know who published the briefs and responses?

So does the preliminary release of the documents mean a mistrial or something? Maybe we'll get to start the whole thing all over.

Flint said: If you think that out of probably tens of thousands of such cases, a total of TWO INSTANCES of just punishments is a pattern of justice and enforcement, then we must simply disagree.

Except that you haven’t shown of tens of thousands of cases, you’ve just assumed that’s the number.

I simply don’t see how you think the Freshwater case will teach anyone that administrations will give up. Because they didn’t give up.

Flint said: [Defeatist rhetoric to discourage those who want to promote proper science education.]

A quick question about costs:

Are the BOE's court costs (for the Admin Hearing, at least) covered by their insurance? Or does it have to come from, e.g., their annual budget? Or in this case, more than one annual budget?

Flint, I don't think the Freshwater case necessarily has to be representative of all attempts to remove proselytizing from the classroom, even to the extent of firing teachers. Not all teachers will demand a tribunal following disciplinary action, especially when they see how expensive it is to lose. Not all teachers will employ lawyers as willfully incompetent as Hamilton.

I understand that in many areas in the US, religious fervour is so ingrained that compliance with federal law is completely disregarded or ignored, but it only takes one determined parent to bring a case to court.

The Founding Mothers said: A quick question about costs: Are the BOE's court costs (for the Admin Hearing, at least) covered by their insurance? Or does it have to come from, e.g., their annual budget? Or in this case, more than one annual budget? Flint, I don't think the Freshwater case necessarily has to be representative of all attempts to remove proselytizing from the classroom, even to the extent of firing teachers. Not all teachers will demand a tribunal following disciplinary action, especially when they see how expensive it is to lose. Not all teachers will employ lawyers as willfully incompetent as Hamilton. I understand that in many areas in the US, religious fervour is so ingrained that compliance with federal law is completely disregarded or ignored, but it only takes one determined parent to bring a case to court.

Throwing in the towel won’t do, since legally we’ve had the upper hand, even if culturally we seem to be at a disadvantage.

you've totally misunderstood what Flint was saying.

he said absofuckinglutely said nothing about "giving up". He is describing the situation, as it is, in most rural districts in the country.

key point:

the BOE did NOTHING about Freshwater for 20 years.

his point was addressing why that is, and why you so seldom see legal cases like that of Kitzmiller and Freshwater, given that indeed at least the poll data shows a large number of creationist teachers in the US, and we also know they like to preach constantly, in class and out.

That said, I think things are also slowly starting to change on those fronts, the creationists are getting more and more desperate, and reaching for ever more ridiculous avenues to maintain their house of cards.

Cases like Kitzmiller and Freshwater are a long time coming, but I think the frequency we see them will start to increase over the next decade.

How about efforts to reform the legal system to require the loser to pay the attorney fees for both himself and the winner in a civil suit?

that IS the way it is in all the states I'm aware of.

Is it not that way in yours?

Flint is not trying to get anyone to stop opposing creationism in the classroom. He is trying to point out that it's far too soon to declare victory; that victory seems an awfully long way off, from where he sits.

The Courts, or any place where rationality rules, evidence matters, and logic is applied, are always going to rule against creationism in the public classroom, and so long as the First Amendment to the Constitution stands in its current form, religious displays, exercises and evangelising will be formally unlawful there.

Flint is, however, saying that that isn't the point. He lives in a community in which creationism and religion in the school is common, time-honoured and unexceptionable, and is enforced by community sanctions against dissenters up to and including criminal acts. Who is going to tell him that he's wrong?

So the struggle must continue until that situation changes, in every American community. It will not end until each and every teacher on the State payroll knows for sure that if he or she displays a Bible or a Biblical quotation, conducts prayer or other exercises, or teaches non-science as science, he or she will be fired, and that's not a maybe. It'll happen for sure, no matter what the principal, the School Board or the majority of the local parents think.

That situation has not been reached, and nobody for a moment thinks it has been. Freshwater is gone, he's history. He will never teach in a public school again, and his contesting it has sent him bankrupt. Now bring more actions, again, and again, and again, until any teacher or administrator within shouting distance of rational thought understands that they can't get away with this, and keep on doing it until all the people who teach American children in public schools are at least capable of rational thought.

Then declare victory. Or better, have your great-grandchildren do it. Me, I'll be dead.

Flint said: I personally KNOW that around here in Alabama, what Freshwater was "teaching" is pretty much the norm. And in most Alabama communities, ALL the parents support this.

I keep trying to point out to you that Freshwater did this same thing for TWENTY YEARS!!!! and the administration did nothing. Somehow, this history escapes you, consistently, repeatedly, and tellingly.

But since nobody can point to all the cases NOT brought, you seem to choose to believe that there is no cause to bring any,

As an analogy, imagine a county where the cost to the county of charging someone with speeding is a million dollars, and the case will take two years to completed, and quite possibly the judge speeds himself and won't punish speeders anyway. Now imagine that, by golly, there are no speeding arrests in that county. Since there are no arrests, would you conclude that nobody every [sic] speeds in that county?

Dave Luckett said: Flint is not trying to get anyone to stop opposing creationism in the classroom. He is trying to point out that it's far too soon to declare victory; that victory seems an awfully long way off, from where he sits. The Courts, or any place where rationality rules, evidence matters, and logic is applied, are always going to rule against creationism in the public classroom, and so long as the First Amendment to the Constitution stands in its current form, religious displays, exercises and evangelising will be formally unlawful there. Flint is, however, saying that that isn't the point. He lives in a community in which creationism and religion in the school is common, time-honoured and unexceptionable, and is enforced by community sanctions against dissenters up to and including criminal acts. Who is going to tell him that he's wrong? So the struggle must continue until that situation changes, in every American community. It will not end until each and every teacher on the State payroll knows for sure that if he or she displays a Bible or a Biblical quotation, conducts prayer or other exercises, or teaches non-science as science, he or she will be fired, and that's not a maybe. It'll happen for sure, no matter what the principal, the School Board or the majority of the local parents think. That situation has not been reached, and nobody for a moment thinks it has been. Freshwater is gone, he's history. He will never teach in a public school again, and his contesting it has sent him bankrupt. Now bring more actions, again, and again, and again, until any teacher or administrator within shouting distance of rational thought understands that they can't get away with this, and keep on doing it until all the people who teach American children in public schools are at least capable of rational thought. Then declare victory. Or better, have your great-grandchildren do it. Me, I'll be dead.

I agreed with you that an administration isn’t likely to start a legal case when no one’s complaining. But I also said, and I think its still true, that its nonsensical to claim that every time a teacher spouts off and no one complains, that is an example of fundies ‘intimidating an administration’ into doing nothing.

You’re arguing every suit not brought is evidence of administration cave-in. I still don’t buy it.

I hope/believe that using reason and the law (at least in most of the country) will resolve disputes

Flint said: what cases like Dover and Freshwater do is illustrate to anyone who wants to make an effective protest, that doing so is guaranteed to be prohibitively expensive, win or lose.

If YOU were an administrator who tacitly supported preaching in the classroom, and who was struggling with a perpetually inadequate budget, would YOU decide to spend a million dollars your district can't afford, to eliminate somone whose actions you supported?

I'm arguing that EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE CONSEQUENCES tend to discourage, rather than encourage, the sort of behavior that results in these consequences. I think this is a no-brainer.

D'oh! Sorry about the duplicate everyone...

eric said: It is a no brainer: the losing side, who bears the most losses, is the side whose behavior will be most likely modified by it. And the losing side in both cases were the creationists. C'mon man, Dover was a win for us. You seriously don't think so?

Flint said: Unfortunately, the lesson school administrators are likely to learn is, if you have a proselytizing teacher and you try to fire him, it will cost your district millions. Don't try it. And the lesson to the bible-pounding teachers is, the administration can't afford to pay for the legal troubles you can cause if they take any action against you, so OK class, bow your heads while we all pray to Jesus.

Mike Elzinga said: However, it was the taxpayers who picked up the tab in the Dover case.

My impression of these instances is that most teachers and administrators in the schools are blind-sided by the emergence of ID/creationism while the ID/creationists are fully aware of what they are doing and making tactical decisions about how to go about it.

I don’t see how two examples of boards fighting their cases to conclusion supports the argument that such cases are prohibitively expensive to fight.

But near as I can figure, you’re arguing the opposite. That somehow the expensive fundie losses in both Kitzmiller and Freshwater make it more likely that a pro-preaching administrator would defend a preaching teacher.

It is a no brainer: the losing side, who bears the most losses, is the side whose behavior will be most likely modified by it. And the losing side in both cases were the creationists. C’mon man, Dover was a win for us. You seriously don’t think so?

Flint wrote:

"Administrators DO NOT WANT to fight. Especially if it costs money. They would MUCH rather just ignore it if at all possible. Which they’re doing. Now that they know how much it MIGHT cost to fight, I suspect they’re closing their eyes AND looking the other way. I can’t blame them.'

Well if outraged parents file law suits they have to fight, they have no choice. Either that or just give in and hand over the money. As long as decent law abiding citizens have the courage to stand up to the criminal behavior of creationists, the only way for a school system to avoid these costs will be to not allow this behavior. That is what they should be afraid of. This is the only defense they have. It doesn't matter if 99% of the parents are willing to look the other way, if even one parent takes action the school will lose big time. Why risk a potentially devastating legal defeat just to misrepresent the science they has a sworn duty to teach? They can still preach in church, unless they can't hack it there either.

And of course, if they allow this crap to go on in the classroom they will have subverted the educational system that they are duty bound to uphold, not to mention the constitution of the United States of America. One country under Canada...

Flint said: [I'm arguing] that the expense makes even anti-preaching administrators look the other way.

Flint said:

I don’t see how two examples of boards fighting their cases to conclusion supports the argument that such cases are prohibitively expensive to fight.

Uh, because these examples both cost a prohibitive amount of money to fight?

Flint said:

But a lack of court cases is really really weak evidence of your claim of administrative cowardice. Because a much simpler explanation is: a lack of unresolved parental complaints.

I see two patternxs here. A pattern of broad proselytizing (not to mention avoiding any mention of evolution in public school) by teachers, combined with broad support or non-interference by school administrations. And a pattern of nearly ZERO instances of teachers OR administrators being chastized or punished for this in any way.

DS said: Flint wrote: "Administrators DO NOT WANT to fight. Especially if it costs money. They would MUCH rather just ignore it if at all possible. Which they’re doing. Now that they know how much it MIGHT cost to fight, I suspect they’re closing their eyes AND looking the other way. I can’t blame them.' Well if outraged parents file law suits they have to fight, they have no choice. Either that or just give in and hand over the money. As long as decent law abiding citizens have the courage to stand up to the criminal behavior of creationists, the only way for a school system to avoid these costs will be to not allow this behavior. That is what they should be afraid of. This is the only defense they have. It doesn't matter if 99% of the parents are willing to look the other way, if even one parent takes action the school will lose big time. Why risk a potentially devastating legal defeat just to misrepresent the science they has a sworn duty to teach? They can still preach in church, unless they can't hack it there either. And of course, if they allow this crap to go on in the classroom they will have subverted the educational system that they are duty bound to uphold, not to mention the constitution of the United States of America. One country under Canada...

Flint said: Administrators DO NOT WANT to fight. Especially if it costs money. They would MUCH rather just ignore it if at all possible. Which they're doing. Now that they know how much it MIGHT cost to fight, I suspect they're closing their eyes AND looking the other way. I can't blame them.

If school boards (and voters) have any sense at all, they'll look at Kitzmiller and say "if some liberal, atheist, pansy-assed wine-tasting, Starbucks-moccachino-sipping, opera loving, illegal alien who who doesn’t like sports and reads the NIV Bible instead of the KJV and thought his grandmother was a monkey takes this to court, we'll lose and it'll up everybody's taxes by $100 a year. Then they'll all come after us with torches and pitchforks". Then the school board and the administration will come down on the proselytizer. If they don't, then the community gets what it deserves.

Okay Flint, then what do you recommend? We not fight in court? What’s your lesson learned for us, not for the creationists? You seem to be saying that when we lose we lose and when we win we lose…or at least its pyrrhic. And you said yourself that the cost of abandoning due process just to get creationists is prohibitive. So, what is the best available course of action we can take?

Why risk a potentially devastating legal defeat just to misrepresent the science they has a sworn duty to teach?

Sorry, Flint, much of what you say seems reasonable, but this statement is logically flawed. If these examples were prohibitively expensive to fight, they would not have been fought to conclusion. The cost did not prohibit the end of the fight.

As long as decent law abiding citizens have the courage to stand up to the criminal behavior of creationists, the only way for a school system to avoid these costs will be to not allow this behavior.

This is definitely a problem, and it is right to be concerned that teachers and administrators take the right message from this case, but to assume that this (and Dover) are just two of tens of thousands of cases and that all of the others are just being ignored is going a bit too far.

this is the 1st case where the offender actually loses financially- the offenders is Dover didn’t personally lose a dime (the tax payers did) - in this case Freshwater will lose his pension! (and his farm)

It is parents that drove the issue, and these cases show parents that they will win.

it’ll up everybody’s taxes by $100 a year.

An off-topic heads-up (sorry):

YEC “astronomer extraordinaire” Jason Lisle just put up his “solution to the distant starlight problem”.

It is also posted at AiG.

Obviously this trope is supposed to upset the entire structure of physics, so I guess I should slog through it (the nausea of anticipation is already quite palpable).

On first glance, I see there are several major – and predictable – flaws within the first few paragraphs; and I can already see several major problems with the rest of it.

Of course, none of this makes any difference to the YECs because any real scientist critiquing the “paper,” is not using the “biblical perspective.” That this “perspective” is the one that must be used is simply asserted, not proven.

Bend the “science” to fit no matter what; sheesh, these idiots never get it!

Mike Elzinga said: ... the “biblical perspective.” That this “perspective” is the one that must be used is simply asserted, not proven.

Flint said: Glad you asked, because I actually did. And the answer was, no matter what the law says, no matter how much it costs, if even ONE SOUL is kept out of hell, it's worth it no matter what. These people are like soldiers who bravely continue to fight knowing they will be killed. For God and Country!

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said: ... the “biblical perspective.” That this “perspective” is the one that must be used is simply asserted, not proven.

Mike, it's all part of "presuppositional apologetics." From wikipedia: "there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian." That's where AiG and CSR & ICR are arguing from. They think they are on the high ground.

Dale Husband said: Amazing! They actually think that promoting fraud as science will keep people out of hell! Do they think their God is a lunatic too?

Amazing! They actually think that promoting fraud as science will keep people out of hell! Do they think their God is a lunatic too?

The first really serious attempt to promulgate a pseudo-science along this line was Henry Morris’s pitting the “myth” of evolution against the “science” of thermodynamics. He deliberately concocted two new pseudo-sciences that were in direct conflict; and neither one of them had anything to do with reality.

Flint said:

Okay Flint, then what do you recommend? We not fight in court? What’s your lesson learned for us, not for the creationists? You seem to be saying that when we lose we lose and when we win we lose…or at least its pyrrhic. And you said yourself that the cost of abandoning due process just to get creationists is prohibitive. So, what is the best available course of action we can take?

OK, this is a good place to start. The real problem here (as I read it, of course) isn't the monetary cost of such battles, so much as the sheer number of creationists doing their damndest to weasel into the school systems and preach to the limit their local circumstances permit. They represent, again in my opinion, a powerful force of evil well out of proportion to their numbers because of their sheer relentless determination.

I am utterly baffled.

You just spent the last two days making posts in which your main point was that the “prohibitive” - your word - costs of court cases resulted in a net negative. I.e., that the cost of the court cases made them pyrrhic victories at best.

And now you say “the real problem here (as I read it, of course) isn’t the monetary cost” ????

In your opinion, who benefits more when we pro-science folks win a highly (taxpayer-paid) expensive court case - them or us?

I can tell you, from deep in the Bible belt, that the parents that oppose such rot are sometimes too frightened to object. If you take on the school system when they inject religion into science class (and most of them where I live do) these nice Christians burn your house, poison your pets, slash your tires and essentially make it necessary to move away. Who wants to put your family through that?

Dale Husband said: Amazing! They actually think that promoting fraud as science will keep people out of hell! Do they think their God is a lunatic too?

eric asks who benefits more when we pro-science folks win a highly (taxpayer-paid) expensive court case - them or us?

raven said:

I can tell you, from deep in the Bible belt, that the parents that oppose such rot are sometimes too frightened to object. If you take on the school system when they inject religion into science class (and most of them where I live do) these nice Christians burn your house, poison your pets, slash your tires and essentially make it necessary to move away. Who wants to put your family through that?

That is because Xianity is a religion of peace and jesus loves us. Sounds horrible.  Out here on the WC, we had these battles decades ago and the schools don't sponsor any religious displays.  Not even a holiday tree which would be legal.  A lot of atheists and New Age pagans watch the school closely. Probably a different world.  A survey a few years ago showed that the students in a local high school spoke 80 different languages among the kids.  Some Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, a lot of New Age pagan kids, atheists, and the usual myriad of xian sects. 

Well the thing you have to consider is the cost of not fighting the creationists. If they are allowed to take over the schools and subvert public education, there will be severe consequences for the United States of America. We have already let our educational system slip to the point where we are no longer the technological leader in many fields. If we ship all of our manufacturing overseas and lose our technological edge, exactly how long do you think the country will be able to survive?

The answer is not to stop fighting for real science education. The answer is to make sure that the right people pay for breaking the law. If a parent brings a law suit against a teacher or a school board it can be monetarily beneficial for them and their lawyers. Now all we have to do is make sure that the court costs are paid by the teacher who actually broke the law, and perhaps the administrators who allowed it, personally. That would go a long way to shutting down such illegal activities.

Freshwater is out of a job. The school board has been voted out. Hopefully the sanctions imposed will be enough to damage Freshwater and his scumbag attorney financially. Now all the judge has to do is order Freshwater to pay all court costs associated with the case and justice will be served. Now that would send the right message.

The NCSE's excellent Creationism and the Law website actually lists more than the 2 most recent high profile cases surrounding these issues. They even highlight Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

This site could be useful in starting to answer some of the "How often do these cases actually occur?" questions discussed here (at least 10 times...). I don't know of any resources that might list how often court cases have been brought that were won by creationists.

Flint, my intention was not to indulge in semantic word games. If you were to repeat the sentence I flagged in front of a hostile audience, they'd rip you a new one, rendering any sound arguments you might have impotent. It's crucial to be accurate when discussing these hugely important issues, to avoid getting bogged down in dubious debating techniques.

Having said that, a hostile audience might laud your quote mining skills. In context: what I asserted was that the vast costs associated with those 2 (completed) high profile cases could prohibit other cases being brought, which I guess is what you intended. No need to be quite so defensive – I appreciate the efforts you make trying to give an insight into the workings of a fundamentalist mindset. Although I find it pretty scary.

The Founding Mothers said: The NCSE's excellent Creationism and the Law website actually lists more than the 2 most recent high profile cases surrounding these issues. They even highlight Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

Paul Burnett said: Note that this list hasn't been updated in over three years - and there have only been two cases added since 2001. The first case listed is from 1968 - there have been ten cases from 1968 to 2007, averaging one case every four years. That's pitiful.

Apologies, I should have said the first link provides 5 leading cases, as well as 20 related cases.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said: ... the “biblical perspective.” That this “perspective” is the one that must be used is simply asserted, not proven.

Mike, it's all part of "presuppositional apologetics." From wikipedia: "there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian." That's where AiG and CSR & ICR are arguing from. They think they are on the high ground.

Yup; since the founding of the ICR, the shtick continues to be asserted even more aggressively by continuing to bend science to justify the presuppositions. Weird, isn’t it? Why should such presuppositions need the support of science? And, as always, the resulting pseudo-science has absolutely no purchase whatsoever in the real world (well maybe only for leveraging gullible rubes and their money). The first really serious attempt to promulgate a pseudo-science along this line was Henry Morris’s pitting the “myth” of evolution against the “science” of thermodynamics. He deliberately concocted two new pseudo-sciences that were in direct conflict; and neither one of them had anything to do with reality. This is the price of presuppositional apologetics propped up on the pompous stilts of pseudo-science and aggressively marketed to the general public. The public needs to see these distortions as clearly as we can make them be known. The price we pay for allowing this stuff to propagate includes teachers like Freshwater.

Flint said: I personally think these expenses (the dollars, the lost time, the retaliation against parents and their children, the loss of school activities, etc.) are more than most local school boards would be willing to risk.

I suspect (as Mike points out), most administrations will wink if possible, and take "administrative action" if possible.

crippling any effective local school administration, EVEN IF they win, plays into creationist hands.

The loss in Dover and analogous losses in Kansas resulted in the community getting angry at the creationists and voting them out. To me that is evidence that a high-cost win (for us) does not play into creationist hands.

eric said: Well, whether its a wink or a sincere corrective action, they are probably going to do the minimum they think necessary to get the parents off their backs. It is up to us (parents, community, etc.) to communicate clearly to them that the minimum we will accept is actual science in science classes - nothing less.

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect there are large variances from state to state; but all administrators as well as teachers should be required to take a course on the laws as they relate to public school education.

But apparently Freshwater was aware of the rules. He pushed the boundaries as hard as he could get away with, but he also made efforts toward plausible deniability in his "monitoring", in his handouts, etc. If this were just a matter of everyone acting in good faith but not being trained in the rules, we could eliminate the problem in a week.

But the default in much if not most of the US is that evolution simply is not covered in high school biology. It's the last chapter in the book and they never quite get to the last chapter, or is mentioned as "this won't be on the test so you don't have to learn it", or whatever. Presenting evolution risks real headaches, and if it's easily avoided, it will be. And it is.

Meh - you'd think they'd cover something as interesting and important as the US constitution in a History or Social Studies class in school. Every US student should know this stuff.

Only problem being if those classes are taught by fundies as well, who might conveniently skip over something like the Establishment clause. Tougher to do than skipping over the last chapter on evolution in Biology, as they're in the First Amendement. But fundies have their ways and means.

I take Flint's points but I think that the cases are a good thing for now if 1 parent goes to a school and demands that their kids are taught creationism they are sent away saying it is illegal.

However, no matter how conservative the school if one (very brave) parent reports a teacher teaching creationism then the school will have to take notice or they will eventually be in court and eventually they will lose big.

Flint said: But what we actually have in the US heartland and deep south is a few apathetic nonreligious people surviving in a land of zealots. Unwilling to take an unpopular stand and face potentially serious retaliation, when the payoff is probably no real change in the status quo, because EVERYONE ELSE is staunchly defensive of the preaching.

Now, if only we could take the 55% of the US public who believes people were poofed into existence within recorded history, and sterilize every last one of them, then in a generation the problem would be solved.

However, no matter how conservative the school if one (very brave) parent reports a teacher teaching creationism then the school will have to take notice or they will eventually be in court and eventually they will lose big.

Also, the costs of the cases is not the cost of fighting creationism and winning. It is the cost of defending of defending creationism and losing.

Until then I submit to you that expensive wins in court strategically favor us, not the losers.

Flint said: Now, if only we could take the 55% of the US public who believes people were poofed into existence within recorded history, and sterilize every last one of them, then in a generation the problem would be solved.

These cases always bring to my mind Gahan Wilson's cartoon of the last surviving soldier, standing amidst the ruins with mushroom clouds in the background, looking around at the devastation and saying "Hey, I think I won!"

Where are all of these Christian's who are willing to sacrifice themselves? In every court case they lie and lie and lie. Is there any public school in the US where the principal stands up and says that we teach creationism here so come and get us?
As I said before, it would only take one complainant that wont back down to shut it down in each school.

I think that you had better back off and take a time-out to think.

Flint said:

I think that you had better back off and take a time-out to think.

I think maybe I need a tongue-in-cheek icon. Creationism is (once again) something inculcated very eary in life, much like foot-binding or neck-stretching. It's only possible to get people to believe what is obviously, stonkingly preposterous, and not be able to shuck it off, if the indoctrination is started right at birth. Even then, it's so extreme it doesn't always "set up". Creationists are as well aware of this as we are (or should be) - there are no "Jesus camps" for the mature. Nobody is saying ideology is inherited, anymore than any parasite is inherited. This shouldn't prevent us from understanding its life cycle, and seeing that the place to break it is in the home (good parenting) and in grade school (teaching children with skill and sanity). But maybe you do not wish to discuss, you only wish to demean and dismiss? If so, why? Why don't YOU go away for a while, until you're ready to have a mature discussion without the condescending ignorance?

You’re asking for a mature discussion after suggesting that people you disagree with be sterilized? Tongue-in-cheek or not, that was wildly inappropriate.

Flint said:

Amazing! They actually think that promoting fraud as science will keep people out of hell! Do they think their God is a lunatic too?

I really don't understand this comment. They know, with Absolute Certainty (something science will never discover) that the claims of the evolutionists are wrong, because their god SAID they were wrong. To them, there is Absolutely NO Doubt that it's science that's the fraud, and not their god. Here is where I must invoke Dawkins, who wrote that "there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence." Dawkins understands, as apparently many here do not, that such beliefs are SINCERE. They may be preposterous, or insane, or prima facie refuted by the obvious. But they are still sincerely believed, and proof against any outside influence.

The first really serious attempt to promulgate a pseudo-science along this line was Henry Morris’s pitting the “myth” of evolution against the “science” of thermodynamics. He deliberately concocted two new pseudo-sciences that were in direct conflict; and neither one of them had anything to do with reality.

But Morris was not a charlatan. He was unfortunate enough to start with an Absolute Truth impervious to reality, but was nonetheless strongly motivated to find some way it could be "real" in practical terms, without varying from Absolute Truth. While the spread of this crap is distressing, I still feel somewhat sorry for those like Morris, who MUST sense that their efforts are profoundly dishonest, but the alternative to dishonesty is unthinkable. I mean, LITERALLY unthinkable. They can't think it. The neural pathways in the brain necessary to think it simply cannot form anymore.

Dale Husband said: Just because someone may sincerely believe that something is true doesn't make it true. Trying to promote a false belief is still fraud and should always be called such.

God never said he created the universe, Earth, life and mankind in six days.

Men writing in God's name made that unfounded and rediculous claim.

Taking the words of men and calling them the Word of God is by nature absurdity no matter how you spin it. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN RELIGION! If there were, there would be only one religion. Instead, there are thousands.

So we have got to deal with these Creationists putting words in the mouth of God. They are blasphemers, hypocrites, idolaters, frauds, idiots, liars and bigots, but don't call them sincere.

Unless you can read their mind and not such their propaganda, no one knows if they are sincere.

Flint, you confuse the hell out of me. Which side are you on, really?

I'm an agnostic evolutionist who thinks we should pull no punches in debunking both Creationism and religious fundamentalism. While I may doubt the existence of God, I believe that if he exists and created the universe, then studying that would reveal more about God than any man-made book. That is why I deny that the Bible is the Word of God, because it makes God look like a liar and an idiot. Of course, some atheists may get a thrill out of such an idea, but I don't.

Just to bring a few of you up to date on biology texts. Most of the modern texts and certainly the most popular (Miller & Levine)and all the others I have seen or used in the last 10 years (teaching in both public and private schools) treat evolution as a major or founding principle of biology. A teacher has to really work to avoid it these days. Instead of being at the end of the book it is often introduced in the first couple of chapters and then expanded soon after M/L starts it at chapter 15 and spends 4 chapters on it. BSCS starts in chapter 1. Human evolution is often relegated to the end of the book but evolution itself isn't. Lousy teachers are having a tougher time trying to avoid the subject.

Mary H said: Human evolution is often relegated to the end of the book but evolution itself isn't. Lousy teachers are having a tougher time trying to avoid the subject.

Honors Biology is a rigorous college-preparatory survey course. Conceptual themes are integrated with meaningful field and laboratory experiences to develop the student's ability to recognize and solve scientific problems. Major areas of study include: ecology, cell biology, biochemistry, genetics, embryology and diversity of organisms.

Advanced Placement Biology is a full year course covering the topics in the required Advanced Placement Curriculum but at a deeper level and with a more intense experimental approach. The major goals of AP Biology are to help students develop a conceptual framework for modern biology and to help students gain an appreciation of science as a process. The ongoing information explosion in biology makes these goals even more challenging. Primary emphasis in this course will be on developing an understanding of concepts rather than on memorizing terms and technical details. Essential to this conceptual understanding are the following: a grasp of science as a process rather than as an accumulation of facts; personal experience in scientific inquiry; recognition of unifying themes that integrate the major topics of biology; application of biological knowledge and critical thinking to environmental and social concerns. Course activities include individual research projects, and laboratory investigations in the following areas: Diffusion and Osmosis, Colony Transformation, Enzyme Catalysis, Genetics of Drosophila, Mitosis and Meiosis, Population Genetics and Evolution, Plant Pigments, Transpiration, Cell Respiration, Physiology of the Circulation System, Behavior: Habitat Selection, Dissolved Oxygen and Primary, Productivity.

Dale Husband said: Flint, you confuse the hell out of me. Which side are you on, really?

"Well the thing you have to consider is the cost of not fighting the creationists. If they are allowed to take over the schools and subvert public education, there will be severe consequences for the United States of America. We have already let our educational system slip to the point where we are no longer the technological leader in many fields. If we ship all of our manufacturing overseas and lose our technological edge, exactly how long do you think the country will be able to survive?"

This paragraph pisses me off royally. I apologize in advance if I stray a bit from emotionless logical arguments, or if I ramble a bit.

The way I see it, this paragraph is hoplessly small in scope. Who cares if the USA is #1 in anything? Not I.

The real concern is the USA becomming the Theocratic SA. And then comes things like the inqusition and Crusades 2.0! Now with NUKES. Small minds like Anne Coulter who talked about rolling over and crushing Canada without so much as a thought or a clue of what she is actually suggesting with their fingers on the Nuke Trigger. Made worse because they have FAITH(tm) that their sky daddy will protect them and guide them to the right choices.

I think we should be in it for the species, not the nationalities. I don't care if the US is #1 or (Since I am Canadian) if Canada is #1 in anything.

Back to the topic of freshwater, I have finally struggled thru most of the brief. It appears that his defence is: i'm an idiot but you're a bigger idiot? do I have that right?

I went back through some old newspaper clippings in my files that I have kept from my days of giving talks about the creationist blitz throughout the 1970s and 80s. There are quite a few from the 1980s era when the blitz was near its maximum and the US Supreme Court decision on Edwards v. Aguillard had not come down yet.

This was after the time Gish harassed biology teachers in this area.

Many of the biology teachers from public, Catholic, and the Christian schools were interviewed about what they taught and why. Most teachers treaded very lightly around the subject, some admitting that they didn’t teach evolution directly. The scars and the pain of confrontations by Gish and religious parents were there, and they remain with teachers and administrators in this area today.

And this is a community in the North. So I am not surprised to hear Flint’s concerns about communities in the South. The creationists were quite brutal in their attacks; and nobody here has forgotten.

Flint said: If that were a suggestion, you might have a point. But in context (and presumably, context is meaningful to those who oppose creationists), the point was that creationism is a mental model that MUST be started very early in life, because it is so contrary to reality that anyone even close to the age of reason couldn't swallow it. Accordingly, the way to battle it is through good parenting. This requires good parents.

I mean, LITERALLY unthinkable. They can’t think it. The neural pathways in the brain necessary to think it simply cannot form anymore.

Now, I agree that there are a lot of whacked out creationism-bots on their personal missions from god out there, but those are the two ways I have to defend my rights. If you know of a third way, please let me know what it is. Because I’m confused about what else I can do.

Dave Luckett said:

eric asks who benefits more when we pro-science folks win a highly (taxpayer-paid) expensive court case - them or us?

Well, what facts have we to work with, to answer that question? Dover. Who won? Who lost?

Michael J said:

Dave Luckett said:

eric asks who benefits more when we pro-science folks win a highly (taxpayer-paid) expensive court case - them or us?

Well, what facts have we to work with, to answer that question? Dover. Who won? Who lost?

I disagree. ID lost BIG in Dover. Pre-Dover it seemed that there was a lot of interest in ID amongst non-scientists who otherwise accepted science. Sure Dembski and Behe got paid but I wonder what their book sales are like now compared to pre-Dover. Dembski just publishes christian books and getting into trouble because he is not a YEC.aaaa

Flint said: I understand in an intellectual way that people find confort in Absolute Truth, even if it’s inane. That for many people a wrong answer that never changes provides the sort of emotional anchor that a probably right but tentative and incomplete answer can never provide.

So I’d rather seek truth than be content with comfort.

Flint said:

So I’d rather seek truth than be content with comfort.

Good for you. Now, how do you convince the majority to feel the same way? After all, ultimately that's our goal here. We know we can use neither logic nor evidence, because True Believers have no use for either one. But we must use logic and evidence, because reality rests on them. Most converts from creationism testify that logic and evidence were useless against their faith; they "knew" better. What shook them was the suspicion that their spiritual leadership was violating the spiritual rules - NOT the rules of logic and evidence. They were being immoral or dishonest. I think the most devastating thing about the Dover decision wasn't that the creationists lost, but that they lied and when caught, they lied again. If Buckingham had stood up and said "you bet I collected the money to buy these books. God demands nothing less. The separation of church and state is an abomination, and I will never stop fighting to correct it!" he'd probably have swayed his target audience (which is the greater community, not the judge). By saying "gee, I have no idea where that money came from" he undermined his faith. So maybe what we need to do is publicize that what the creationists are doing is dishonest, devious, and immoral. Forget illegal, that's a side-effect.

Rich, you may be right. My personal view is that Buckingham's lies were of the sort that anyone can grasp immediately. Like Judas, he directly denied knowledge of what he himself had done. This is a simple lie, the lie of a child to a parent. Everyone understands it.

Behe's lies were much more subtle. I've talked with people who continue to believe that Behe showed that ID was REAL SCIENCE, right there in the courtroom. He used fancy language and big words, he has the PhD and the tenured professorship, he bearded the lion in his own den!

And we should note that Behe himself is on record, on numerous subsequent occasions, crowing that this is exactly what he did, and how proud he is of having had the opportunity to demonstrate, under oath, that ID is real science after all. He dismisses all criticism of his testimony as ideological bickering by those who don't understand the science. He was able to testify, under oath, that his concern was a scientific concern, with the actual physical mechanisms of design in empirical practice. After all, this is what he said on the stand. It's what he said in his book. It's what he believes. And someday, despite the ridicule, he promises to FIND such a mechanism. Scientifically, you know?

So while we understand that when he couldn't actually lie he was reduced to bafflegab and doubletalk, the average creationist in the street doesn't accept that. They NEED to believe ID is scientific. But they can understand Buckingham's lies.

Flint said: ...Most converts from creationism testify that logic and evidence were useless against their faith; they “knew” better. What shook them was the suspicion that their spiritual leadership was violating the spiritual rules - NOT the rules of logic and evidence. They were being immoral or dishonest.(...)

Flint said: Rich, you may be right. My personal view is that Buckingham's lies were of the sort that anyone can grasp immediately. Like Judas, he directly denied knowledge of what he himself had done. This is a simple lie, the lie of a child to a parent. Everyone understands it. Behe's lies were much more subtle. I've talked with people who continue to believe that Behe showed that ID was REAL SCIENCE, right there in the courtroom. He used fancy language and big words, he has the PhD and the tenured professorship, he bearded the lion in his own den! And we should note that Behe himself is on record, on numerous subsequent occasions, crowing that this is exactly what he did, and how proud he is of having had the opportunity to demonstrate, under oath, that ID is real science after all. He dismisses all criticism of his testimony as ideological bickering by those who don't understand the science. He was able to testify, under oath, that his concern was a scientific concern, with the actual physical mechanisms of design in empirical practice. After all, this is what he said on the stand. It's what he said in his book. It's what he believes. And someday, despite the ridicule, he promises to FIND such a mechanism. Scientifically, you know? So while we understand that when he couldn't actually lie he was reduced to bafflegab and doubletalk, the average creationist in the street doesn't accept that. They NEED to believe ID is scientific. But they can understand Buckingham's lies.

Flint said:

So my question is, instead, what is it that provides the motivation for creationism? What is it about the US that is eroding our educational system and making blind superstitution so satisfying, different from other first world nations? What is causing the strong trend away from more neutral faiths and toward fundamentalism and ignorance? Why is this trend so regional?

I suggest you pick up Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in America Life. Even though it was written the 60s much of what it says still applies. He noted the confluence of religious fervor and the influence of corporate America to only have "practical" things taught in the schools both caused an anti-intellectual effect.