Freshwater: The termination resolution

I find it disappointing that the Board chose to specifically chastise Freshwater because he "taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong". In principle, that's what we should be teaching our kids: the "critical thinking" skills that would let them question scientists and science in general. Obviously, Freshwater was teaching this "skill" incorrectly (substituting religious dogma for actual thinking skills), but I don't see the fact that he taught that science can be wrong as a "problem".

My concern is that the wording will simply be a gold mine for the martyr circuit: "See, we told you that people get fired for questioning evilution. Now we have it in black and white." I think the Board would have much better served the cause by limiting their whereas'es to the facts that Freshwater injected his religious doctrine in place of actual science.

I wonder if Mr. Thompson might have somehow managed to get this wording added to the resolution? If you can't beat the process, undermine its legitimacy.

Sigh...

Scott F said: I find it disappointing that the Board chose to specifically chastise Freshwater because he "taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong". In principle, that's what we should be teaching our kids: the "critical thinking" skills that would let them question scientists and science in general. Obviously, Freshwater was teaching this "skill" incorrectly (substituting religious dogma for actual thinking skills), but I don't see the fact that he taught that science can be wrong as a "problem".

I'm impressed that the Board chose to include Freshwater's use of class time to preach about the sins of homosexuality in the laundry list of things he did wrong. I know we as a community have a long way to go with regard to GLBT rights, but this was a nice surprise.

RBH said: This particular item was based in part on the testimony of a former student, who when asked by his siser about dating a rock, based on his experience with Freshwater answered that “Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything.” Sure, the wording might be a gold mine for creationists, but one lives with that in perpetuity in this game.

I always found it odd that discussion of the sin of homosexuality was somehow relevant to the discussion of “(critically examining) the evidence both for and against evolution.”

"Mr. Freshwater also taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong when they declare that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality;"

I think we all realize that it is virtually impossible to say something that cannot be quote mined.

Any guesses as to whether the Dishonesty Institute puts Freshwater on their martyr's list of the "Expelled," or hides, tail between legs, as they did after Dover?

Krubozumo Nyankoye said: I think we all realize that it is virtually impossible to ... be quote mined.

Though I appreciate the decision and its justification I wonder if I have missed something: Didn't he burn crosses in the skin of children which IMO would have been enough to fire him irrespective of his inappropriate preaching in classes.

I'm wondering about that, too, sparc.

The first ground the Administration advanced for terminating Freshwater was the inappropriate use of the Tesla coil. Prior to this case, the Administration had already dealt with that matter -- they told Freshwater to stop it, and Freshwater apparently complied. Thus, the referee did not consider this to be grounds for terminating Freshwater, and so the school board did not include this in its resolution to terminate Freshwater.

While it might well have been appropriate to terminate Freshwater for the Tesla coil "experiments", that ship had already sailed when the administration told Freshwater to stop rather than moving to terminate him. IANAL, but that's my understanding of the situation.

sparc said: Though I appreciate the decision and its justification I wonder if I have missed something: Didn't he burn crosses in the skin of children which IMO would have been enough to fire him irrespective of his inappropriate preaching in classes.

The Founding Mothers said:

sparc said: Though I appreciate the decision and its justification I wonder if I have missed something: Didn't he burn crosses in the skin of children which IMO would have been enough to fire him irrespective of his inappropriate preaching in classes.

Freshwater stopped doing that when he was told to stop. These acts were therefore never considered part of the administrative hearings, but (IIRC) were dealt with separately in the Doe vs Freshwater Federal cases.

A science teacher who tells the class that "Science can't teach us anything" should be out on their ear faster than a flat-earther geography teacher.

Terenzio the Troll said: Freshwater stopped doing that when he was told to stop. Wow, how good and appropriate of him! If it was MY son the one who received the burning, I would have gone and waited Mr. Freshwater in the parking lot with a propane torch. Why didn't that action count as an assault?

Why an episode (even a single one) of assault is not enough to fire someone on the spot, regardless of his religious views?

eric said: AFAIK no criminal charges were filed, so its not legally assault. The BOE would have had to go after him for something more squishy - something like reckless or irresponsible behavior, or behavior inappropriate in a classroom.

eric said: Because its not a propane torch. The risk of serious harm and the extent of any injury was low enough that the board chose not to try and fire him for it. Like you I disagree with that, but I understand their logic.

Matt G said: True enough, but as I understand it, Freshwater created a coercive environment by pressuring the boy to have the cross burned onto his arm.

eric said:

Matt G said: True enough, but as I understand it, Freshwater created a coercive environment by pressuring the boy to have the cross burned onto his arm.

RBH seemed to imply in some earlier coverage that the burnees were volunteers.

Its certainly refreshing to see local school board members actually defending science rather than trying to figure out how to inject their personal religious beliefs into classroom instruction.

Thanks Richard for your continuing fine efforts in bringing us the full story. Also, thanks to the BOE (4 out of 5 of them anyway) for doing the right thing and firing John Freshwater. Unfortunately we can't let our guard down for, as Richard has mentioned previously, there are others in our public school system who share Freshwater's agenda although they might not be as open about it as he was.

RBH said:

eric said:

Matt G said: True enough, but as I understand it, Freshwater created a coercive environment by pressuring the boy to have the cross burned onto his arm.

RBH seemed to imply in some earlier coverage that the burnees were volunteers.

They were volunteers, and it was a classroom demonstration that had been done many times by Freshwater. I don't recall whether other teachers also did that particular exercise.

Christian religious principals of Creationism and Intelligent Design;

1) "principals"? I presume they're not talking about the school supervisors.

2) If I were writing this, I wouldn't have specified Christian, but would have said something like "his personal" religious principles.

But, aside from those quibbles, it is pleasing to see that ID is recognized as being religious.

TomS said: Christian religious principals of Creationism and Intelligent Design; 1) "principals"? I presume they're not talking about the school supervisors.

Paul Burnett said: ... but I bet the Dishonesty Institute is already crafting a response claiming that intelligent design creationism is science, not religion.

RBH seemed to imply in some earlier coverage that the burnees were volunteers.

So, the public hearing commenced October 2, 2008 and extended through June 22, 2010. Freshwater was formally dismissed effective January 10, 2011. Has he been on paid leave all this time, will he collect any money from the school, or not?

DavidK said: So, the public hearing commenced October 2, 2008 and extended through June 22, 2010. Freshwater was formally dismissed effective January 10, 2011. Has he been on paid leave all this time, will he collect any money from the school, or not?

Nobody can volunteer for anything without full, informed consent. Prior to zapping any student with any electronic device, there should have been a full disclosure to the child's legal guardians about the risks of potential harm to a student if he/she participates in a "scientific" demonstration, and the consent would need to come from the guardian. May we please now dismiss, forever, any notion that the cross-burning was anything other than reckless, at best (or abuse, at worst), and that it should have been reported to the police as suspected child abuse?

Nobody can volunteer for anything without full, informed consent. Prior to zapping any student with any electronic device, there should have been a full disclosure to the child’s legal guardians about the risks of potential harm to a student if he/she participates in a “scientific” demonstration, and the consent would need to come from the guardian. May we please now dismiss, forever, any notion that the cross-burning was anything other than reckless, at best (or abuse, at worst), and that it should have been reported to the police as suspected child abuse?

mrg said:

Paul Burnett said: ... but I bet the Dishonesty Institute is already crafting a response claiming that intelligent design creationism is science, not religion.

Curse you, I had to go over to EN&V and check. In reference to your conjecture the answer is "not yet", but the nonstop whining there continues at high RPM. Even if by some unusual coincidence they said something I agreed with, it would still sound like a dental drill.

There will be more to come; The foreclosure sale of Freshwater's farm, and the disciplinary hearing for Hamilton are two that come to mind.

They can’t deny the case’s existence forever, especially if we ever start nagging them about it.

Frank J said:

mrg said:

Paul Burnett said: ... but I bet the Dishonesty Institute is already crafting a response claiming that intelligent design creationism is science, not religion.

Curse you, I had to go over to EN&V and check. In reference to your conjecture the answer is "not yet", but the nonstop whining there continues at high RPM. Even if by some unusual coincidence they said something I agreed with, it would still sound like a dental drill.

I have been following the DI's deafening silence since the beginning (mostly pestering RBH and others to do the dirty work for me :-)). While the DI could conceivably break its silence now, there's still the inconvenient fact that anything positive or negative that they say about Freshwater will offend some of the rubes that they have lured into their big tent. They can't deny the case's existence forever, especially if we ever start nagging them about it.

There will be more to come; The foreclosure sale of Freshwater’s farm, and the disciplinary hearing for Hamilton are two that come to mind.

google: Creationist Astronomer Sues Univ. of Kentucky | The Sensuous ...Dec 11, 2010 ... No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for ... 27 Responses to Creationist Astronomer Sues Univ. of Kentucky ... sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/.../creationist-astronomer-sues-univ-of-kentucky/ - Cached Job candidate sues UK, claiming religion cost him the postDec 10, 2010 ... No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate ... about Kentucky's flagship university hiring a “creationist” in a ... www.nebscience.org/gaskell.html - Cached Astronomer Sues University of Kentucky, Claiming Faith Cost Him a ...Dec 18, 2010 ... In 2007, C. Martin Gaskell, an astronomer at the University of ... that Dr. Gaskell “had outspoken public views about creationism and ... www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html - Add to iGoogle Follow Up on Martin Gaskell's Lawsuit of the University of KentuckyDec 14, 2010 ... Martin Gaskell is an astronomer in my subfield, and a pretty good one, ... Tags: astronomy, career, creation, evolution, jobs, Kentucky, ... www.mikebrotherton.com/?p=2657 - Cached

The next case will be that astronomer who is suing the U. of Kentucky for not hiring him.

harold said: Briefly, what happens in a case like this is that someone does something objectively unreasonable that, for purely objective reasons, unequivocally prevents them from functioning correctly in a job. Then they claim that their unreasonable, harmful behavior was due to their religious beliefs, and that they must therefore be paid to do a job that they at best refuse to do properly, or at worst, outright sabotage. "My religion conflicts with the basic requirement of this job, but I want it anyway, and you have to pay me to not do it and/or sabotage it, or I'll sue for 'religious discrimination'".

eric -

As almost always, I entirely agree.

Amusingly, I was writing about the nutjob who plans to sue U of Kentucky, but I realized later that my comment exactly describes Freshwater's behavior.

raven said:

They can’t deny the case’s existence forever, especially if we ever start nagging them about it.

Sure they can. This is the Dishonesty Institute whose entire reason for existence is to lie a lot.

I believe that the Bible on his desk would never have been a problem, had he not been proselytizing in various ways, including teaching AGAINST science. I taught high school
English for 25 years, and always had at least one Bible on my shelf, and occasionally on my desk. And I am an atheist.

raven said:

They can’t deny the case’s existence forever, especially if we ever start nagging them about it.

Sure they can. This is the Dishonesty Institute whose entire reason for existence is to lie a lot. Not being hindered by the truth or reality, they will come up with something. Probably along the lines of persecution and martyrdom. This is however, another signficant defeat for creationism and the DI. A step further for creationism on its long journey to Flat Earth status.

from the Canton Repository Jan 14 :"The cost of a hearing for an Ohio teacher accused of burning students’ arms with the mark of a cross has lawmakers talking of possible changes to a 1941 state law.

Incoming Chairman Gerald Stebelton of the Ohio House Education Committee tells The Columbus Dispatch the law letting teachers demand administrative hearings can make it expensive to fire them.

The Mount Vernon schools in central Ohio have $900,000 in lawyer and other bills from the hearing on John Freshwater."

But we could speed that along if we do do more to divide our opponents. Activists and their mostly clueless audiences disagree among themselves on virtually everything other than “something is wrong and/or evil about ‘Darwinism’.” It makes no sense to keep letting them off the hook about that.

Unlike flat-earth-ism, creationism has an emotional component keeping it alive - the revulsion people feel toward being physically related to monkeys. This is a particularly strong revulsion precisely because it is so evident. Not until there is a remedy for the yuckiness will creationism become as irrelevant as flat-earth-ism.

Incoming Chairman Gerald Stebelton of the Ohio House Education Committee tells The Columbus Dispatch the law letting teachers demand administrative hearings can make it expensive to fire them.

Chip Poirot said: IMO, the District screwed up big time in not seeking termination for that specific offense.

That said, in retrospect my understanding of his other behavior was not clear. After reading the referee's report and the termination motion, the long history now makes more sense to me.

Still, the District had a responsibility to take corrective action long ago.

I still think the guy's lawyer did a poor job.

TomS said: Unlike flat-earth-ism, creationism has an emotional component keeping it alive - the revulsion people feel toward being physically related to monkeys. This is a particularly strong revulsion precisely because it is so evident. Not until there is a remedy for the yuckiness will creationism become as irrelevant as flat-earth-ism.

TomS -

Not to mention, perhaps, the revulsion some people feel toward being unequivocally related to some other people.

harold said:

Incoming Chairman Gerald Stebelton of the Ohio House Education Committee tells The Columbus Dispatch the law letting teachers demand administrative hearings can make it expensive to fire them.

Freshwater may not have a Fox show yet, but his "noble sacrifice" is already paying big right wing, anti-education dividends. The state of US public education is deplorable, but, although it was hard to fire Freshwater, making conditions for teachers worse, including by making it easier to summarily fire them, is not the solution (apparent massive consensus that it is notwithstanding). All other things being equal, anything that makes teaching a worse job will reduce the relative quality of entrants to the career. It is true that all other things are not equal, since overall wages and working conditions in the US are declining and have been for a while, and that therefore reducing pay and job security for teachers may be perceived as keeping them equal with the benefits of other opportunities (and this may drive the consensus to some degree). Still, pounding on teachers at a time when education is already suffering is a potentially dangerous game.

I have looked recently at geocentrism. The geocentrists make a good Scriptural argument for the Sun going daily around the fixed Earth, and it is certainly true that nobody before the year 1500 suggested that the Bible was using metaphorical language about that. This is much more solid Scriptural evidence for the fixity of the Earth in contrast with the silence about the fixity of species.

I don't doubt the resourcefulness of quote miners with the Bible, so I'm sure that they can dig up something which says that the Earth is a planet. It should be amusing.

harold said: TomS - Not to mention, perhaps, the revulsion some people feel toward being unequivocally related to some other people.

andy said: from the Canton Repository Jan 14 :"The cost of a hearing for an Ohio teacher accused of burning students’ arms with the mark of a cross has lawmakers talking of possible changes to a 1941 state law... The Mount Vernon schools in central Ohio have $900,000 in lawyer and other bills from the hearing on John Freshwater."

The Founding Mothers said: Can anyone clarify just how confusing the 2nd statements is: i.e., won't the BOE insurers pay out that $900,000 dollars, rather than coming directly from the local tax-payers?

In response to other, earlier comments, IIRC other teachers used to use the RF device in classroom demonstrations at Mt Vernon, but had stopped doing so some time before Freshwater, who continued the demonstrations until requested to stop after burning Zack (Doe).

Hey RBH!

Commentors on KnoxPages.com (Knox County, Ohio)
are saying that Freshwater released an audio statement regarding his termination on radio WMVO yesterday.

Those who heard the statement say that Freshwater tried to give it a positive spin for himself by claiming that the referee's decision to not take the Tesla coil incident into consideration (because it had been handled administratively) is proof that the claims of abuse were a hoax.

I haven't been able find a recording of the statement on WMVO's website.

However, AccountabilityInTheMedia.com has pulled the same spin in its 1/11 blog by focusing on the referee's comments about the Tesla coil incident being blown out of proportion in the media/public. According to AccountabilityInTheMedia's cub reporter Sam Stickle, "Shepherd dismisses the allegation that Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of one of his students".

Stickle went on to quote the referee's comments about Freshwater excelling as a teacher.

One paragraph of the report was devoted to each of the aforementioned items.
In the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting, AccountabilityInTheMedia.com devoted ONE SENTENCE to the referee's judgement that Freshwater was in violation of the Establishment Clause. Nothing at all was mentioned about Freshwater teaching creationism, pushing his religious beliefs, etc.

Not to worry though, Sam Stickle states that he will probably be producing a follow-up article on the termination resolution (yeah, as soon as he can come up with some more positively slanted BS).

I doubt that creationism will go the way of Flat-Earthism, i.e. attract a small, hopelessly deluded audience and be rejected by a significant majority, any time soon.

Besides the aforementioned slant that Freshwater supporters are taking on the outcome (i.e., cherry picking the positive statements about Freshwater out of the referee's report) there is another tactic developing: that of blaming the school board for the $900,000 price tag of this mess.

Now, in the referees report to the BOE I have found the following lines (in section IV, Specified Ground No. 04, on Disobedience of Orders). "The administration of the Middle School in conjunction with the Superintendent began an investigation into the allegations. After investigating, the administrators began implementing a plan of corrective actions in hopes of forestalling legal action against the Mount Vernon Schools."

Was this just the BOE proactively covering the school district's collective ass (albeit in hindsight, pardon the pun), or was this in response to something that the Dennis family asked for. That is, did the Dennis family specifically state that they wanted the district to take corrective measures to stop Freshwater's classroom proselytizing, and if done to their liking they would not sue the district? If the latter is correct, then Freshwater is even more clearly to blame for the nearly $1 million cost of this fiasco.

Are the transcripts of the hearing available (preferably in a searchable format)? Alternatively, Dick, do you recall where you might have posted on this exchange during the hearings? (I have done several searches of the archived posts, but I cannot find this, but that does not mean it isn't in there.)

Raven, I've never had a quibble with anything you've ever posted until now. That 50% of the population has an IQ less than 100 is applicable to ANY population larger than 30 individuals, statistically speaking. That is part of the definition of IQ, that 100 is the mean and median of any measured population. You can measure IQ in Mississippi and get the same results as if you did the same measurement in any other state, or any other place on the globe for that matter, so long as the sample is sufficiently randomized and the sample size is greater than 30.
I was paying strict attention in my graduate Mental Measurements class. Let's remember that belief in any sort of woo isn't at all correlated to IQ, but to education. Ignorance is curable, and even a person with a 75 IQ can accept science as a valid explanation for natural phenomena. It's just a shame that people with IQ's of 120 or better can be so damned willfully ignorant.

Quite possibly the first change that should be made to the Ed. Code on the hearings is to remove the ability to have the hearing activity suspended when schools are not in session. While that might not have saved much, it would have shortened the entire process by a good 6 months, and maybe more.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Ignorance is curable, and even a person with a 75 IQ can accept science as a valid explanation for natural phenomena.

EJH said: Besides the aforementioned slant that Freshwater supporters are taking on the outcome (i.e., cherry picking the positive statements about Freshwater out of the referee's report) there is another tactic developing: that of blaming the school board for the $900,000 price tag of this mess.

Now, in the referees report to the BOE I have found the following lines (in section IV, Specified Ground No. 04, on Disobedience of Orders). "The administration of the Middle School in conjunction with the Superintendent began an investigation into the allegations. After investigating, the administrators began implementing a plan of corrective actions in hopes of forestalling legal action against the Mount Vernon Schools." Was this just the BOE proactively covering the school district's collective ass (albeit in hindsight, pardon the pun), or was this in response to something that the Dennis family asked for. That is, did the Dennis family specifically state that they wanted the district to take corrective measures to stop Freshwater's classroom proselytizing, and if done to their liking they would not sue the district? If the latter is correct, then Freshwater is even more clearly to blame for the nearly $1 million cost of this fiasco.

Are the transcripts of the hearing available (preferably in a searchable format)?

Alternatively, Dick, do you recall where you might have posted on this exchange during the hearings? (I have done several searches of the archived posts, but I cannot find this, but that does not mean it isn't in there.)

50% of the US population have IQs less than 100.

I see what you did there.

;)

MaryM said: Hey RBH! Commentors on KnoxPages.com (Knox County, Ohio) are saying that Freshwater released an audio statement regarding his termination on radio WMVO yesterday. [SNIP] I haven't been able find a recording of the statement on WMVO's website.

We can live with 20-30% of the population as YECs.

— raven

~40% give the common answer “humans created in their present form in the last 10K years.”

Flint said:

~40% give the common answer “humans created in their present form in the last 10K years.”

Let's say you disagree with this. So when would you say that humans were "created in their present form?" There would seem to be certain assumptions buried in this statement...

Freshwater should not be terminated because he questions so-called scientists who "declare" a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. What Freshwater meant was that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. He has a right to air that belief, even in school. By the way, is the school board supposed to be politically correct in the subject of homosexuality? Of course, Freshwater should be terminated for espousing Biblical creationism and teaching that evolution is false, but not because he is politically incorrect about sex.

Here is proof that firing a teacher will not alone help the issue in Mt. Vernon Ohio. In a blog on AIG a professor admits that in Sunday school she teaches that what her students learn in science class, in school, is wrong. Do people really wonder why kids are confused????

"Scientists and Science Should Not Be Questioned According to a Local School Board
ShareThisPublished on January 18, 2011 in Education and Science. For several years the Mount Vernon (Ohio) local school board has been dealing with a case involving an eighth grade science teacher, Mr. John Freshwater. Mr. Freshwater has been accused of many things, but most of the accusations focus on his Christianity and desire to teach students alternatives to evolution such as Intelligent Design. When I was a professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University, I can remember the case starting, and I spoke on behalf of Mr. Freshwater at a school board meeting. Since that time the case has grown to epic proportions, and although I have not been directly involved, I have kept current on the litigation (see here, here, here and here for more information).

The case finally came to a sad close last week with the Mount Vernon school board firing Mr. Freshwater. I read with interest the resolutions put forth by the school board for firing Mr. Freshwater. One resolution stated the following:

Mr. Freshwater taught his eighth grade students that homosexuality is a sin, so anyone who chooses to be a homosexual is a sinner. Mr. Freshwater also taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong when they declare that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality;

While I agree that homosexuality is a sin according to Scripture (Romans 1:24–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Revelation 21:8), I want to focus on the second half of this resolution. Basically, it states that students should not be taught that science and scientists can be wrong regarding the “genetics” of homosexuality. I know for a fact that the school board cannot present evidence from the primary scientific literature showing a definitive link between genetics and homosexuality because I have researched the topic myself and know that such evidence is lacking. No definitive conclusions have ever been made linking particular genes or alterations of genes to homosexuality. Either the school board did not do the appropriate research or they desire to be politically correct more than scientifically correct.

Another resolution stated this:

Mr. Freshwater not only injected his subjective, biased, Christian religion based, non-scientific opinion into the instruction of eighth grade science students but also gave those students reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science textbooks, and/or science in general;

But many science teachers all over the U.S. inject their subjective, biased, humanist-religion-based, non-scientific opinion into the classroom all the time—and instead of being fired, they keep their jobs and even get promoted! According to the school board’s resolution, students shouldn’t doubt the accuracy and veracity of scientists, science textbooks, and science. Do we really want our children to walk away from their science classrooms thinking that it is wrong to question the scientific establishment and just accept whatever the scientific experts say? Absolutely not!

Good observational/operational science is based on the principles of questioning and attempting to falsify scientific findings. Where would we be today in our understanding and treatment of disease if we had just accepted from the scientists of the past that disease was caused by bad air or “vapors”? We needed scientists like Louis Pasteur to question and falsify these ideas. Pasteur used the technology of his day to understand that some diseases are caused by bacteria and developed ways to prevent diseases through vaccination.

Good historical science is based on correct knowledge of the past. The Bible provides this knowledge as it is the history book of the universe; any ideas about the past apart from the Bible are simply based on the opinion of man who was not there.

It should not surprise us that the math and science scores of students in the U.S. are miserably low if this is what the public school system is teaching in regard to science. Parents, no matter what choice you make in regards to the education of your children—home, Christian, or public school—you have a responsibility to teach them the truth about science beginning with God’s Word. I also encourage Sunday school teachers and youth pastors to make sure that you are teaching the truth on these issues in the church. Be sure to check out some of our great resources.

I teach Sunday school for first through third grade, and over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing dinosaurs, radiometric dating methods, natural selection, and mutations. I teach them that what they learn in public school in regard to historical science concerning these ideas is not the truth. I teach them how to defend their faith and give answers from a young age starting with the Bible. One of the second-grade girls in my class told me that one of her classmates said he didn’t believe in God and that she didn’t know what to say in response. Hopefully, our lessons together will equip her with the answers.

I encourage you to pray for Mr. Freshwater and others like him who truly are missionaries in our public school system."

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/01/18/scientists-and-science-should-not-be-questioned/

That "professor" is Georgia Purdom, formerly of the biology department at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University but now a full-time employee of Ken Ham. She publicly supported Freshwater's 2003 effort to stuff Intelligent Design Network's "Objective Origins Policy" into the Mt. Vernon public schools' science curriculum.

That said, the termination resolution was badly worded in several places.

RBH said: That said, the termination resolution was badly worded in several places.

B. A. Rainey said: Freshwater should not be terminated because he questions so-called scientists who "declare" a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. What Freshwater meant was that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. He has a right to air that belief, even in school...

Do any of you realize that we're taking it too far the other direction. We're asked to blindly accept science when in fact science, on many occasions, has been as wrong as we all claim religion is. Science is becoming its own sort of religion.

Also as a high school science teacher, I have heard kids say “science doesn’t teach us anything” more than once. What a kid thinks a teacher is teaching/saying and what a teacher is actually teaching/saying are sometimes two different things.

Don’t get me wrong, he should have been fired for a number of things, but let’s be careful not to take this too far the other way or out of context.

JDHalfrack said: Do any of you realize that we're taking it too far the other direction. We're asked to blindly accept science when in fact science, on many occasions, has been as wrong as we all claim religion is. Science is becoming its own sort of religion.

Also as a high school science teacher...

JDHalfrack said: Do any of you realize that we're taking it too far the other direction. We're asked to blindly accept science when in fact science, on many occasions, has been as wrong as we all claim religion is. Science is becoming its own sort of religion.

JDHalfrack said: Do any of you realize that we're taking it too far the other direction. We're asked to blindly accept science when in fact science, on many occasions, has been as wrong as we all claim religion is. Science is becoming its own sort of religion. Also as a high school science teacher, I have heard kids say “science doesn’t teach us anything” more than once. What a kid thinks a teacher is teaching/saying and what a teacher is actually teaching/saying are sometimes two different things. Don’t get me wrong, he should have been fired for a number of things, but let’s be careful not to take this too far the other way or out of context.

Malchus said: No competent teacher - none - asks students to take current scientific theories blindly, nor to treat them akin to holy writ. I take it that you do not teach high school science?

raven said: 50% of the US population have IQs less than 100.

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

eric said:

Malchus said: No competent teacher - none - asks students to take current scientific theories blindly, nor to treat them akin to holy writ. I take it that you do not teach high school science?

So, we've got one new poster claiming its perfectly okay for public school science teachers to discuss their position on sin in class. We've got a second admitting she teaches kids in sunday school that mainstream science is all wrong. And then along comes a third who says he's with us, but tells us the real problem is that its us scientists who are going too far. Uh huh. I'm inclined to agree with you Malchus; my guess is they all decided to come over and post together.

John Vanko said: This reminds me of a passage in Tim Berra's Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Stanford University Press 1990, "Several scientist colleagues who read this book in one of its sixteen drafts admonished me to tone down the bluntness of my statements on creationism, fearing that I might alienate otherwise receptive readers. But it seems to me that scientists have, for too long, treaded too lightly on the creationists, and have thereby fostered the impression that the creationists are a legitimate scientific voice. It is time for candor and clarity." Preface, pg ix

I am a sixty year old man and I am still working out the fear and prejudice that I was fully indoctrinated
into starting with my dedication to God by my adoptive parents at 5 days of life.
We lived next door. to my uber Pentecostal grandparents whom I dearly loved and wanted to please.
We attended church faithfully not two services a week but three plus Sunday school.
At nine or ten I became a royal ranger a scouting type organization that we were introduced to by my Grandparents Assembly of God church.
The work books and awards were all geared to indoctrinate one in a very literalist view of scripture.
Heaven and hell were very real to us and reasoned speech was to be suspect, It wasn’t real preaching and teaching unless it was shouted at you.
From the first grade until third grade I attended a Lutheran Grade school but my parents decided the tuition was to much of an expense when my grades were plummeting . That was a shock attending public school but it was for the better. I didn’t have so much home work and I could get in a little street baseball with the neighborhood kids.
I rebelled in my teen years and early adult hood
After all it was the 60’s.
Then I found myself with children to raise and mortgage to pay and realized that I was drawn back to my roots with its simple answers and comfortable, reassuring support and comradery.
Then came the Internet and after trying to converse with people on boards and things. And especially with younger collage folk that were savvy to the rules of debate I discovered that the philosophies and doctrines I had believed all my life to be the most righteous and benevolent world view, to be fallible errant, corrupt and utterly indefensible.
Unfortunate for my children they ran to the same place they watched their Dad run in time of trouble.
Two of them are solidly indoctrinated and cannot reason.
For myself I still enjoy scripture study but approach it as any literature and I have reached the point that
I can approach it skeptically and not feel guilty.
As to the professor being banned I believe it to be perfectly correct and necessary.
The fundamentalist evangelical are convinced that to squander an opportunity to use an influential position to further the work of the kingdom of God would be tantamount to denying Christ before men. A charge that carries the stiff punitive measure of Jesus denying the offender before the Father (God) and without Jesus as your vouguesafe you are before a wrathful God with all your naked sin!
It sounds like Mr. Freshwater had many more things to think through beside his indoctrination and droning for Jesus. He shows a major lack of judgment and a propensity to scientific lab equipment inappropriately from both a safety and influential overstepping and undercutting of the parents rightful authority.
Everything possible must be done to keep peer approved science fact in the classroom and religious conjecture and dogma out!

This whole Freshwater matter is disgusting. To think that in this day and age the primitive superstition of Bronze Age goat-herders can guide people's professional and more importantly moral decisions is horrible. I think we can lay this on-going situation squarely at the door of 'Noble Lie' elites and pure opportunists who see more to gain out of keeping the common man stupid than raising him up.

However I also think that previous posters have made too much over the so-called 'burning'. If this matter were divourced from its religious context I doubt there would be any uproar. I recall many demonstrations from my youth involving alcohol, rockets, acids, etc there were far more potentially harmful than this. The old example of holding a dollar bill or some other object covered in pure alcohol comes to mind. I think that some of this is the incredible level of insurance-based stifling mollycoddling that goes on with kids today. Talking with my nephews, just about everything that was fun or interesting that I did as a kid in the 70s would be illegal or an insurance risk these days. That includes all the home chemistry, rocketry, and cherry-bomb type kits of the day that inspired me to learn more as I matured. Are kids today so much softer than I was? Life is a risk and it is harmful to raise an entire generation of wimps who can't do anything without a dozen protective safeguards and parental consent and liability forms. State regulation and the insurance industry is robbing an entire generation of their rightful heritage as youth.

State regulation and the insurance industry is robbing an entire generation of their rightful heritage as youth.

This particular item was based in part on the testimony of a former student, who when asked by his siser about dating a rock, based on his experience with Freshwater answered that “Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything.”

Marion Delgado said: Everyone attacked Sen. Rick Santorum for saying that gay marriage and evolution would lead to man-on-dog marriage and other End Times stuff. Here, we find a student's sister, probably underage, asking her brother if it's okay to date a mineral! And this is as a consequence of "science" and "evolution." When you have girls romancing inanimate objects, isn't it time to say the secularization has gone far enough, no more?

RBH said:

Scott F said: I find it disappointing that the Board chose to specifically chastise Freshwater because he "taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong".

Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Let alone science? Teaching Creation is 100% science! More so than just teaching evolution as unadulterated fact! If you only teach evolution you're not teaching the best part of science, thinking! By teaching the other view, which mind you agrees with all scientific laws known to man (Which something from nothing is the ultimate against.), you're teaching them how to think for themselves, and that is a very important skill that's lacking these days. Not to mention, by saying you can't disagree with scientists or science is the opposite of what science is for, you can't have science without disagreements. These idiots who fired him need to get their act together...

Jon Voisey said:

RBH said:

Scott F said: I find it disappointing that the Board chose to specifically chastise Freshwater because he "taught his students that science and scientists can be wrong".

The full text of that statement includes the important part of his statement: "when they declare that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality". In other words, he's selectively targeting specific ideas to cast unreasonable doubt upon. If he had taught that scientists may be wrong in a generic case, then he would have a point. But by declaring that it's only on specific issues, he's flat out wrong.

Ben said: Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Let alone science? Teaching Creation is 100% science! More so than just teaching evolution as unadulterated fact! If you only teach evolution you're not teaching the best part of science, thinking! By teaching the other view, which mind you agrees with all scientific laws known to man (Which something from nothing is the ultimate against.), you're teaching them how to think for themselves, and that is a very important skill that's lacking these days. Not to mention, by saying you can't disagree with scientists or science is the opposite of what science is for, you can't have science without disagreements. These idiots who fired him need to get their act together...

Ben said: Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Let alone science? Teaching Creation is 100% science! More so than just teaching evolution as unadulterated fact! If you only teach evolution you're not teaching the best part of science, thinking! By teaching the other view, which mind you agrees with all scientific laws known to man (Which something from nothing is the ultimate against.), you're teaching them how to think for themselves, and that is a very important skill that's lacking these days. Not to mention, by saying you can't disagree with scientists or science is the opposite of what science is for, you can't have science without disagreements. These idiots who fired him need to get their act together...

Superb post! I enjoy you making this content available that is why I place your site in my set of advised web sites. Check it out here http://myfbbusinesspage.com/siteswelike/, our visitors will unquestionably like your website!