Freshwater: Referee recommends termination

Posted 8 January 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

Knoxpages.com is reporting this morning that R. Lee Shepherd, the referee in the administrative hearing on the termination of John Freshwater as a middle school science teacher in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, has recommended that Freshwater be terminated. I don't have the referee's report yet, and will post more when I do. Meanwhile see Adam Taylor's story at the linked site.

62 Comments

The Curmudgeon · 8 January 2011

It just popped up at the Columbus Dispatch too: Mount Vernon teacher should be fired for pushing Christian agenda.

Ahcuah · 8 January 2011

Boy, you are quick. This just came out.

Here is the Columbus Dispatch story..

Malchus · 8 January 2011

An excellent outcome. Will he be expected to pay costs?

RBH · 8 January 2011

Malchus said: An excellent outcome. Will he be expected to pay costs?

Not the District's costs, though he is responsible for his own legal fees and reportedly pledged his farm (~40 acres, IIRC) to cover those costs.

DS · 8 January 2011

What is the probability that the recommendation will be ignored? At this point, I would assume that the recommendation will be accepted and Freshwater will finally learn his lesson.

RBH · 8 January 2011

DS said: What is the probability that the recommendation will be ignored? At this point, I would assume that the recommendation will be accepted and Freshwater will finally learn his lesson.

Three of the five current members of the Board of Education voted in favor of the resolution to consider termination two years ago. Of the two others, one, Steve Thompson, is an avowed Freshwater supporter and former member of a group that raised funds for his legal costs. The other, Paula Barone, recused herself from participation in discussions or votes on the matter after her election "at this time." Whether she will reconsider that recusal now is unknown. Thompson did not recuse himself from the matter in spite of his public support of Freshwater and the attendant litigation risk he brings on the Board.

Charley Horse · 8 January 2011

I've been waiting for Shepherd to release his report before stating what I
am sure many others have thought. Shepherd was milking this hearing and
intentionally delaying releasing the report to increase his fees.
Not knowing whether he follows PT's reporting and comments, was the reason
I held off saying that. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong on that.

Malchus · 8 January 2011

Do you have any good reason to believe this is the case?

Charley Horse said: I've been waiting for Shepherd to release his report before stating what I am sure many others have thought. Shepherd was milking this hearing and intentionally delaying releasing the report to increase his fees. Not knowing whether he follows PT's reporting and comments, was the reason I held off saying that. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong on that.

Charley Horse · 8 January 2011

Yes, I think I do. My own observations in following this the entire time.
I would like to see how his fees and expenses were structured. Hourly, daily, retainer, etc.
As I said, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

DS · 8 January 2011

Thanks RBH. Sounds like a done deal. Hopefully the board will also realize what the consequences of ignoring the recommendation would be, especially after all the time and expense of the hearings.

RBH · 8 January 2011

Charley Horse said: Yes, I think I do. My own observations in following this the entire time. I would like to see how his fees and expenses were structured. Hourly, daily, retainer, etc. As I said, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

I actually doubt your conjecture. It was clear that Shepherd lost control of the hearing, or at least failed to exercise control, early on, and once that pattern was established he just rode with it. But I doubt that it was a fee-seeking tactic (though that's a side effect, of course).

Malchus · 8 January 2011

Charley Horse said: Yes, I think I do. My own observations in following this the entire time. I would like to see how his fees and expenses were structured. Hourly, daily, retainer, etc. As I said, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

I was hoping for more specifics: can you identify specific delaying tactics he employed? Instances where it was clear that there was no reason not to move forward, etc.? You're talking about a fairly serious charge; I'm curious what the data is to back it up.

MikeMa · 8 January 2011

Is this the part where we start singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead"?

Wheels · 8 January 2011

Better late than never. Out of all the separate cases and their overseers, the referee is the one that really worried me when it came to people who might buy into some of Hamilton's obfuscating arguments and FUD tactics.

fnxtr · 8 January 2011

I may also have been the case that Shepherd was just letting Freshwater provide the maximum quantity of rope for himself.

RBH · 8 January 2011

I've just learned that in late November, after the settlement of the last federal suit, Paula Barone notified the Board of Education that she was withdrawing her recusal. So she will participate in the discussions concerning the referee's recommendation and will vote on it.

Doc Bill · 8 January 2011

If the boobs vote not to terminate Freshwater, what then? Regardless of how the board votes I can't imagine Freshwater riding off into the sunset. There's gonna be trouble in River City.

RBH · 8 January 2011

Doc Bill said: If the boobs vote not to terminate Freshwater, what then? Regardless of how the board votes I can't imagine Freshwater riding off into the sunset. There's gonna be trouble in River City.

"Boobs"? Is that a reference to the BOE? If so, it's badly mistaken (with the possible exception of one member). Aside from Thompson, who is a loose cannon, the other four members are hard-working and thoughtful. As to what would happen if the Board votes to accept the referee's recommendation, Freshwater then still has the option to bring suit in the Court of Common Pleas, the lowest level in the state court system. Whether he will do so or not is unknown. If the Board votes to ignore the referee's recommendation and retain Freshwater, he will collect back pay for the period that he's been suspended and will go back into the classroom.

Gary Hurd · 8 January 2011

Well, I am almost sad it is over. RBH, you have done' a fantastic job of reporting on this case.

Many Thanks.

RBH · 8 January 2011

Gary Hurd said: Well, I am almost sad it is over. RBH, you have done' a fantastic job of reporting on this case. Many Thanks.

Thanks, Gary, though I have to say I'm not sorry it's (almost) over!

Mike Elzinga · 8 January 2011

Gary Hurd said: Well, I am almost sad it is over. RBH, you have done' a fantastic job of reporting on this case. Many Thanks.

Fantastic is an understatement. As Dick has noted on other occasions, one cannot be as intensely exposed to ID/creationist nonsense as he has without having the distinct feeling that one is loosing brain cells as a result. It can get really painful at times.

seabiscuit · 8 January 2011

I just did a little website checking. I see that the Accountability in the Media website that has laid low since October when it's creator was subpeoned for the Federal Court case has added to their webpage. The last notation made was about the federal case being dismissed in October 2010. The website has now added the information about when the next school board mtg is for the year 2011. I find that very interesting and possibly a "subtle hint" to Freshwater supporters.

The question now will be whether Mr. Thompson, one of 2 new school board members and a friend of Freshwater's, will recuse himself from any School Board vote regarding the referee's recommendation.

Charley Horse · 8 January 2011

Malchus said:
Charley Horse said: Yes, I think I do. My own observations in following this the entire time. I would like to see how his fees and expenses were structured. Hourly, daily, retainer, etc. As I said, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.
I was hoping for more specifics: can you identify specific delaying tactics he employed? Instances where it was clear that there was no reason not to move forward, etc.? You're talking about a fairly serious charge; I'm curious what the data is to back it up.

I would like to see more specifics on what he was paid. I also want to see the final report. The news items on this say he is not addressing the cross burning which I find odd. Once I see the report and spend a bit of time trying to find out how much he was paid, I may have more to say. Does anyone have a clue where to find out how much his total fee is?

seabiscuit · 8 January 2011

RBH said:
Doc Bill said: If the boobs vote not to terminate Freshwater, what then? Regardless of how the board votes I can't imagine Freshwater riding off into the sunset. There's gonna be trouble in River City.
"Boobs"? Is that a reference to the BOE? If so, it's badly mistaken (with the possible exception of one member). Aside from Thompson, who is a loose cannon, the other four members are hard-working and thoughtful. As to what would happen if the Board votes to accept the referee's recommendation, Freshwater then still has the option to bring suit in the Court of Common Pleas, the lowest level in the state court system. Whether he will do so or not is unknown. If the Board votes to ignore the referee's recommendation and retain Freshwater, he will collect back pay for the period that he's been suspended and will go back into the classroom.

I would also have to wonder if the Board would vote to ignore the recommendation if that wouldn't set up Mt. Vernon for the same fate as Dover: making the school district "uninsurable and losing the insurance that has protected them during this lawsuit.

Paul Burnett · 8 January 2011

seabiscuit said: The question now will be whether Mr. Thompson, one of 2 new school board members and a friend of Freshwater's, will recuse himself from any School Board vote regarding the referee's recommendation.

Can one only recuse oneself, or can other members cause one to be recused? Thompson should obviously not be permitted to participate in the fire/don't fire decision - but how to get him to recuse himself if he doesn't do the honorable thing himself?

The Curmudgeon · 8 January 2011

Okay, I'll venture a prediction: The board will go along with the recommendation. Whatever they do will be controversial, but approving the referee's report is the most justifiable action. The referee heard all the evidence, the board is in no position to second-guess the referee, etc. Clean, simple, and defensible.

JGB · 8 January 2011

One could easily argue that the board is in the unenviable position of risking continued legal action either way. Based on that alone it makes the most sense to bet against the guy who is now 0-3 in legal proceedings.

seabiscuit · 8 January 2011

Paul Burnett said:
seabiscuit said: The question now will be whether Mr. Thompson, one of 2 new school board members and a friend of Freshwater's, will recuse himself from any School Board vote regarding the referee's recommendation.
Can one only recuse oneself, or can other members cause one to be recused? Thompson should obviously not be permitted to participate in the fire/don't fire decision - but how to get him to recuse himself if he doesn't do the honorable thing himself?

That's a good question and one I don't have the answer to. Would be nice to think there is a way for the other members to recuse him since he could put them all in a situation that could prove to be harmful to all.

Flint · 8 January 2011

Would be nice to think there is a way for the other members to recuse him since he could put them all in a situation that could prove to be harmful to all.

Which means almost surely it won't happen. Creationists seem unable to follow any policy other than scorched earth.

RBH · 8 January 2011

I think it's almost certain that Thompson won't recuse himself and that the Board won't address that question.

John Vanko · 8 January 2011

Must the Board's vote be unanimous?

RBH · 8 January 2011

John Vanko said: Must the Board's vote be unanimous?

Nope. A simple majority will do it.

John Vanko · 8 January 2011

Done deal!

Glen Davidson · 8 January 2011

It only took years and costly hearings to finally get to the point where he just could be fired for pushing religion on children compelled to be his audience, and at state expense.

What a shock that religious apologetics continues to be taught in so many elementary schools.

Glen Davidson

Paul Burnett · 8 January 2011

RBH said: I think it's almost certain that Thompson won't recuse himself and that the Board won't address that question.

Even if somebody's walking around in front of the meeting place with a sign that says "Freshwater Sympathizer Thompson: Recuse Thyself"? (Hint hint)

dogmeat · 8 January 2011

Malchus said: An excellent outcome. Will he be expected to pay costs?

Malchus, Billing Freshwater or awarding legal expenses to him isn't feasible in this sort of hearing process. The idea is that a wrongfully terminated employee has the right to challenge that termination. If they penalized the employee when they lost, it would have a chilling effect upon the right of other employees to protect their employment rights. Unfortunately Freshwater abused the system put in place to protect the rights of legitimate educators, but then he abused the system to infringe upon the rights of his students, so that shouldn't be too surprising.

mike · 8 January 2011

this is a great article

Flint · 8 January 2011

Glen Davidson said: It only took years and costly hearings to finally get to the point where he just could be fired for pushing religion on children compelled to be his audience, and at state expense. What a shock that religious apologetics continues to be taught in so many elementary schools.

I think I understand why firing teachers is made as difficult as it is. In general, this protects teachers who WILL NOT preach in class, especially in communities like this where it's expected and encouraged. It's the general problem that the more you protect the innocent, the more difficult it becomes to punish the guilty. Which isn't helped, of course, by the typical creationist's relentless determination and enthusiastic willingness to destroy the village to "save" it.

Matt Young · 8 January 2011

Can one only recuse oneself, or can other members cause one to be recused?

Merriam-Webster, which is not exactly a legal dictionary, says that by definition you can only recuse yourself. I suspect that also means that you cannot be forced to recuse yourself, but I'd sorta like to hear it from a lawyer, rather than a lexicographer.

JGB · 8 January 2011

Random question for the more legally adroit, is there enough deliberate assistance coming from some of these creationist organizations (Oh you mean our material was used to illegally teach religion in public school, we had no idea) that they could be pursued under a class action suit?

Wheels · 8 January 2011

It's probably not worth anybody's time to try and dig up a case, even if there was an actual conspiracy to aid Freshwater in teaching Creationism. Anyway, it looks like the impetus to pollute the class was all Freshwater's.

DavidK · 8 January 2011

After all these hearings it still remains for the board to dismiss him, or not. Should he be retained, one wonders how effective he would be as a (science?) teacher within the school district. I would feel sorry not for him but for any prospective students who might be assigned to a class taught by him.

JGB · 9 January 2011

I was thinking more like marketing of a dangerous product, given the obvious dangers of continuing to use these teaching materials. I'd be amused if the had to put some sort of disclaimer on their websites and materials."Warning this lesson/ presentation while discussing science topics contains no actual science."

RBH · 10 January 2011

Wheels said: It's probably not worth anybody's time to try and dig up a case, even if there was an actual conspiracy to aid Freshwater in teaching Creationism. Anyway, it looks like the impetus to pollute the class was all Freshwater's.

I'll repeat here part of a comment I made in another thread:

Several variables contributed to what the referee called Freshwater's determination to "...to inject his personal religious beliefs into his plan and pattern of instruction of his students." First, he himself wholly buys into the AIG/Hovind/Wells anti-evolution view. He had a Hovind video and Wells's Icons of Evolution in his classroom in 2008, and I put no credence whatsoever in his claim that he was using them merely to illustrate "bias." That was a desperation move to attempt to tie that crap to the Academic Standards. In 2003 when he pushed Intelligent Design Network's "Objective Origins Policy" he used Wells's materials--Survival of the Fakest and Wells's Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution as supporting materials. Second, he was part of a group of teachers and coaches in the middle school of similar views. At least three other teachers--Andrew Thompson, Lori Miller, and Dino D'Ettorre--shared both his evangelical views and his disregard for the First Amendment in the school. Teacher Kerri (Carrie?) Mahan testified that Freshwater taught hydrosphere theory, that tracks showed that dinosaurs and humans had lived at the same time, that Mt. St. Helen’s eruption could have produced coal rapidly, and that T. rex’s teeth showed it couldn’t have been a carnivore, some of the worst creationist trash, and that it was probably she who sent him the Watchmaker video. Finally, Tim Keib, former middle school assistant principal, was a co-religionist and sympathizer who provided administrative cover for Freshwater and the others. There are doubtless other contributing variables, but as I was quoted by the Columbus Dispatch as saying, "It looks to me like he was running what amounts to a private Christian school embedded in the public school." He wasn't alone in it.

Chuck Henkel · 31 January 2011

Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

RBH · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

There's a huge difference between "questions the establishment" and "purveys falsehoods." The latter is what Freshwater did. He pushed long-debunked creationist falsehoods about science and evolution to 8th graders.

mrg · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy.

A creationist might think that. Others would more realistically interpret it as teaching students to recognize and dismiss doubletalk, delusions, and con-jobs.

eric · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion.

All possible material? How ridiculous. We wish we could review all relevant material, but for a lot of research there is not enough time in the day to even do that. So what we do is look at the references and citations of the known, relevant research and supplement that with as much 'cold' literature search as we can feasibly do. Where the difference lies is that scientists don't get our material from AiG web sites or the bible. We get it from the peer reviewed literature. And we generally keep digging until we get to the primary source documents (the actual published research results, not some other person's opinion of what the results may mean). Creationists interpret this reliance on peer reviewed primary source literature as ignoring material in favor of their 'particular philosophy' merely because creationists have no peer reviewed primary source literature. So the result is the same, although creationists completely fail to understand that the fix is that they need to actually do research. The fix is not for scientists to start taking AiG's online interpretations of some other person's research seriously.

Mike Elzinga · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

Apparently you are completely unaware of the history of ID/creationism. There is nearly a 50 year history of creationists, “scientific” creationists, and intelligent design proponents attempting to get sectarian dogma into the public school curriculum using a pseudo-science as a disguise. Not only has this scam been well studied, it has even failed in the courts. It is one of the most thoroughly-reviewed scams in the history of socio/political scamming. And the conclusions from all this examination? It violates the US Constitution, promulgates misconceptions and mischaracterizations of science, and has been linked to a particular, virulent brand of sectarian religion that ultimately seeks a theocratic government. You still think wasting valuable time with pseudo-science in a science class is justified?

DS · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

Actually, no. That isn't at all how you teach grade school science. What you do is get the experts to review all of the relevant material and reach a scientific consensus that earns the right to be in the state standards and textbooks. The teacher then teaches what is in the standards and in the textbook. But that isn't what Freshwater did is it? No, he ignored all if the relevant material and substituted his own religious dogma for real science. Why didn't he review all of the material? Why didn't he present ALL of the evidence for evolution, at least as so far as it was in the textbook and in the state standards? Why should he be forgiven for cheating his students of an education? Why shouldn't he be held accountable for his actions? Just ask yourself this, would you feel any different if he had substituted Islam for science?

Mike Elzinga · 31 January 2011

JGB said: Random question for the more legally adroit, is there enough deliberate assistance coming from some of these creationist organizations (Oh you mean our material was used to illegally teach religion in public school, we had no idea) that they could be pursued under a class action suit?

Judging from some of their disclaimers, the DI seems aware of the possibility of legal action against them. From what I have seen over the years, there would be far more than enough evidence to bring a class action suit against these characters, including AiG and the ICR. The big problem is getting a coordinated effort among enough interested parties who would have legal standing in such a suit. But I think the ACLU, AUSCS, NCSC and any other organization with historical perspective should be looking ahead to the possible day when the charlatans of ID/creationism can finally be brought to justice for the damage they have done to public schools over a period of 40+ years. It’s long overdue; but these ID/creationist sharks seem to know instinctively how to avoid prosecution.

phantomreader42 · 31 January 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

So, chuckles, you're not a religious fanatic trying to steal tax money to indoctrinate other people's children into your sick death cult? You really just want to make sure all opinions get a chance? You really expect us to fall for that shit? Would you give alchemy equal billing with modern chemistry? Would you teach Holocaust denial alongside the mainstream interpretation of WWII? Would you teach of phrenology, the four humours, epicycles, phlogiston or the luminiferous aether? Would you support a science class teaching that Zeus feared the power of mortals, and so split them into two halves, male and female? Would you teach Aesop's fable about how the leopard got it's spots? Tales of Coyote The Trickster's pranks and sexual escapades? Or the ancient Egyptian depiction of the sun as being rolled across the sky by an immense scarab beetle? Would you teach that the rabbit's bushy tail arose when the sun god Frith blessed their prince El-Ahrairah with speed and cunning as he hid in a hole from his many enemies? Would you teach that this planet was fashioned by hyperintelligent pandimensional mice as an immense computer, which they intend to use to determine the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and everything? Would you allege that gravity is an illusion, and things are instead held down by the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who fiddles with scientific experiments to hide this fact? Would you declare that the world around us is the dream of a deranged Japanese schoolgirl who does not realize her own divine power? Or that the earth is actually a flat disk, supported on the backs of four enormous elephants, themselves balanced on the shell of a gargantuan turtle? Is that the kind of science class you want? Presenting all sides, without the slightest regard for evidence or even plausibility? No, you would not teach any of these things. You would recoil in horror from the very thought. All you want taught is the dogma of your cult. Evidence means nothing to you. Honesty is beyond your comprehension. You pretend to favor knowledge and freedom, but you seek only unearned promotion of your beliefs at the expense of all others. You seek power, not truth. Tyrrany, not freedom. This is why your cult cannot be trusted. You don't even have the tiny speck of honesty necessary to admit your true goals, no matter how obvious you make them. Drop the bullshit, and just admit to being a science-hating creationist asshole. Oh, and by the way, thanks for admitting your support for child abuse, by defending a teacher who branded students with the sign of your cult. You really are scum.

fnxtr · 31 January 2011

+1 internets to phantomreader42.

Stanton · 31 January 2011

fnxtr said: +1 internets to phantomreader42.

phantomreader42 gets a A+ for effort, but an A- overall, as AmonRa was pushed across the sky by two gigantic scarab beetles.

phantomreader42 · 31 January 2011

Stanton said:
fnxtr said: +1 internets to phantomreader42.
phantomreader42 gets a A+ for effort, but an A- overall, as AmonRa was pushed across the sky by two gigantic scarab beetles.

I have also taken liberties with the plot of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, and I may have misspelled El-Ahrairah. Not sure if Zeus is the correct god in the first example either, though he seems the most likely candidate.

phantomreader42 · 31 January 2011

phantomreader42 said:
Stanton said:
fnxtr said: +1 internets to phantomreader42.
phantomreader42 gets a A+ for effort, but an A- overall, as AmonRa was pushed across the sky by two gigantic scarab beetles.
I have also taken liberties with the plot of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, and I may have misspelled El-Ahrairah. Not sure if Zeus is the correct god in the first example either, though he seems the most likely candidate.

Of course, I was working from memory, and we all know no creationist is capable of reading for comprehension anyway, so effort is wasted on them.

mrg · 31 January 2011

phantomreader42 said: Or that the earth is actually a flat disk, supported on the backs of four enormous elephants, themselves balanced on the shell of a gargantuan turtle?

There was actually a "Fifth Elephant", but it was thrown loose and crashed into the landscape. Its remains, particularly lodes of fat, continue to be mined as a profitable industry.

Scott F · 31 January 2011

eric said: And we generally keep digging until we get to the primary source documents (the actual published research results, not some other person's opinion of what the results may mean).

Hey! Some of us actually rely on other persons' opinions of what the results may mean. I wouldn't have a clue what the primary source documents were saying. I stayed as far away from biology as I could, on purpose. Give me a lever and fulcrum, or a computer program any day; something I can actually calculate with. None of this squishy wet-ware stuff. :-)

Cubist · 1 February 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

The last time I checked, chemists don't bother to review any material having to do with phlogiston before they arrive at a conclusion, and they've been dismissing phlogiston for hundreds of years. So if the mere fact that some concept is dismissed by scientists is a problem, well, it's a problem of very long standing, and it doesn't seem to have led to a Dark Ages yet.
Personally, I'd say that when a concept is validly dismissed, as pholgiston was, it's not a problem for science; rather, it's an example of science working as it should. In addition to phlogiston, I would cite the Ptolmeic solar system (the one with all the epicycles) as an example of a conceps that was validly dismissed... and for the life of me I cannot see how the dismissal of either phlogiston, or the Ptolmeic solar system, or both, is (as you, Chuck, would have it) a first step on the road to a new Dark Ages.
So I'm curious, Chuck: Would you agree, or disagree, that phlogiston and the Ptolmeic solar system are concepts which have been validly dismissed?

Cubist · 1 February 2011

Chuck Henkel said: Most scientists review all possible material to arrive at a conclusion. It appears we are now teaching students to dismiss any and all material which is contrary to a particular philosophy. It is now apparent that those who promote the examination of all material are to be disciplined rather than encouraged. Are we headed for another "Dark Ages" with the chastisement of anyone who questions the establishment?

Addendum to my previous comment: Suppose John Doe is a teacher who insists on presenting phlogiston to their students as if it were a valid scientific concept. Tell me, Chuck: Do you think Doe should be encouraged, or disciplined?

eric · 1 February 2011

Cubist said: Addendum to my previous comment: Suppose John Doe is a teacher who insists on presenting phlogiston to their students as if it were a valid scientific concept. Tell me, Chuck: Do you think Doe should be encouraged, or disciplined?

Looks like Chuck was a troll of the "drivebyus" subspecies, so I don't think anyone will object to me taking this on a slight tangent. Of course such a person should be disciplined. But, pertinent to PT, this discipline will not have the same basis as the one used to discipline creationist teachers. Because such a teacher has not violated the first amendment by attempting to push religion in school. He's just been a bad teacher. So the legal justification, the authority which does the disciplining, etc... may all be different from 'typical' creationism. This is important because someone like Chuck could argue that because we let local authorities (or whatever) deal with phlogiston-teaching teachers without federal intervention, why not do the same for creationism? The answer to which is: phlogiston-teaching does not violate the constitution. Creationism does. So when the locals don't fix the problem, federal intervention is completely justifiable in the latter case where it may not be justifiable in the former case.

Mike Elzinga · 1 February 2011

eric said: This is important because someone like Chuck could argue that because we let local authorities (or whatever) deal with phlogiston-teaching teachers without federal intervention, why not do the same for creationism? The answer to which is: phlogiston-teaching does not violate the constitution. Creationism does. So when the locals don't fix the problem, federal intervention is completely justifiable in the latter case where it may not be justifiable in the former case.

ID/creationism is also national in scope; it always has been. It was conceived and implemented by fundamentalists determined to push their sectarian doctrines into the public school. They had hundreds of meetings and strategy sessions among themselves to find ways to slip around the law, to confuse terminology, to build a plausible-sounding pseudo-science, and to establish sectarian organizations such at the ICR, the DI, and AIG. Duane Gish quit his job at the Upjohn Company to join Henry Morris in building ICR and put together a bunch of debating points that they could use to taunt scientists into campus debates. There was nothing accidental about the occurrence of ID/creationism. It was a deliberate and well-coordinated attack on the public schools nationally; and it had in its strategy from the very beginning the objective of being declared legal by the courts. There was no way local school districts could have been prepared for such a blitz; and there was no way the blitz could be dealt with locally without some coordination and information that was derived from a perspective that included the entire country. The National Center for Science Education was crucial in this battle; as was the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.