Freshwater: Misrepresenting the case

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. You dedication to this whole case has been a great boon to the community.

Never trust a website or a book or a publication having "Truth" in its name. It's a dead giveaway.

Remember that the USSR's "Pravda" meant "truth".

Can someone with a thick white beard throw on a robe and tell Freshwater to knock it off? Otherwise, I don't think he's ever going to stop embarrassing himself like this.

Thanks RBH. It's pretty incredible to how these churchies will spin their tails (sic) of woe as their martyr goes down to defeat.

@olorin618: There were two newspapers. One was "Izvestia" (news) and the other was "Pravda" (truth). The saying went, "There's no izvestia in Pravda and no pravda in Izvestia." Oh, those wacky commies! They always cracked me up!

I suppose there's "truth" relative to what actually happened, and then there's "truth" relative to the way the story is best positioned for the purposes it's aimed at. The Pravda (Official Truth) here, is that Freshwater was a devout, dedicated, God-fearing, and skilled teacher who did nothing either wrong or objectionable, but who was brought down by evolution-believing atheists who feared Freshwater's bible and the power it represented. This version, as opposed to the actual sequence of events, has the advantages of being simple, focused, and two-dimensional enough to be easy to understand. It also allows Freshwater to be lumped in with Guillermo Gonzalez as another gifted academic booted out for faith in Jesus.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn (when he was released from the Gulag) said that the best way to read any newspaper worldwide, was to assume that everything said was true, and then to ask the question,'what have they not told me?' That is, what is left out can very often be filled in by clever thinking; not fulproof sure, but very useful in our chritainized/reliogiothized world; remember, what have I not been told?

Good job,as always. Have you posted this, or emailed it to the "truth" lovers?

Gary_Hurd said: Good job,as always. Have you posted this, or emailed it to the "truth" lovers?

Paul Burnett said:

Gary_Hurd said: Good job,as always. Have you posted this, or emailed it to the "truth" lovers?

I submitted a detailed comment yesterday - but it is still awaiting moderation.

The story is "true" in the same way the Bible is "true", i.e., it reinforces the beliefs and cohesion of the culture it was manufactured in.

Not the way the sane world uses the word "true", but there you go.

Routine.

Lying is one of the fundies three main sacred sacraments.

The other two are hate and hypocrisy.

The creationists are preparing their totally one-sided narrative for elevating Freshwater to martyrdom. It's the same with Coppedge.

Paul Burnett said:

Gary_Hurd said: Good job,as always. Have you posted this, or emailed it to the "truth" lovers?

I submitted a detailed comment yesterday - but it is still awaiting moderation.

fnxtr said: The story is "true" in the same way the Bible is "true", i.e., it reinforces the beliefs and cohesion of the culture it was manufactured in. Not the way the sane world uses the word "true", but there you go.

I read this "interview" yesterday and wondered who exactly is lying. Freshwater or the blogger? I check in with a few fundy blogs regularly and often find the same info passed from blog to blog. Often the source is WND (World Net Daily)
known for its complete lack of editorial standards and use of plagiarism. http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2012/wndplagiarism.html
Fundies seem to naively believe everything they read on Christian websites and pass it on without question. Yet, they are also guilty of lying by omission, spinning, hyping, and emotionalizing their own content.
"Accountability in the Media" blogger Sam Stickle is well on his way to this kind of doublethink.

DavidK said:

Paul Burnett said:

Gary_Hurd said: Good job,as always. Have you posted this, or emailed it to the "truth" lovers?

I submitted a detailed comment yesterday - but it is still awaiting moderation.

Some of your comments were posted 4/21.

Egads! A correspondent informs me that I flat missed a second falsehood in the first sentence: Freshwater was a middle school science teacher, not at the high school.

Paul Burnett said: I submitted a detailed comment yesterday - but it is still awaiting moderation.

harold said: The Bible......is never pro-stealing, pro-murder, or pro-lying...

The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled "separation of church and state" as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans' freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.

The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater's counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved — GASP! — arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!

Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.

We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

And here's another story out just last week.

Finally, there's the solution:

We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.

Good. You lose.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: The Bible......is never pro-stealing, pro-murder, or pro-lying...

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city (Jericho, right after the walls came tumbling down), both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. ... And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. (Joshua 6:21 and 24) Sure sounds like pro-stealing and pro-murder to me, if not outright pro-genocide and pro-ethnic cleansing. The pro-lying bit's best example is Martin Luther's infamous "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - discussion at http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=40318

"...One wonders where those errors came from, given that the author of the report claims to have spoken to Freshwater...."

You have to admit, though, harold, it's not what we today would call "unbiased reporting". If indeed there is such a thing.

The fact that this @#$#ing case is still ongoing is strong evidence there's no God, IMO.

Every single comment up until the most recent (by Bonnie) was critical :) That article is science bait.

There is now a Freshwater Interview Part 2 on The Report Card site. More lies (or "repackaging the truth") The link in the article works or you can use this: http://education-curriculum-reform-government-schools.org/w/tag/john-freshwater/

cmb said: There is now a Freshwater Interview Part 2 on The Report Card site. More lies (or "repackaging the truth") The link in the article works or you can use this: http://education-curriculum-reform-government-schools.org/w/tag/john-freshwater/

More Freshwater fun: http://able2know.org/topic/188035-1

More Freshwater fun:

Even more Freshwater fun: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1584564

(Fun for me to read the comments)

MSM said: Even more Freshwater fun: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1584564 (Fun for me to read the comments)

"I think they will review it, and if this doesn't go well, the Ohio Supreme Court will talk to John Freshwater to see if he wants to go to the U.S. Supreme Court," the attorney predicts.

The article says: "The third sentence has another falsehood:

In 2006, [Freshwater] won Outstanding Teacher of the Year, and has always earned excellent evaluations.

Freshwater’s evaluations were excellent, as best I know, but he never received an “Outstanding Teacher of the Year” award because the Mt. Vernon district has never had such an award in the 40 years I’ve lived here. He did receive a couple of “Distinguished Teacher” awards.."

Hoppe said in the introduction: "Every sentence has an error of fact." However, his sentence also has an error of logic. from the above sentence, Hoppe concluded that Freshwater did not receive "outstanding teacher of the year" so other good evaluation cannot be reliable. That is his personal like or dislike issue, not persuasive speculation of the fact.

How is this attack on Freshwater for wanting to have critical evaluation in science any different than the attack on John Scopes for wanting to do the same? Are we supposed to brainwash kids with Darwinism by neglecting to teach the scientific methods supporting or discrediting it? If science classrooms are only allowed to teach Darwinism, how are children going to be able to develop the skills to evaluate it rationally?

Freshwater didn't teach critical evaluation of science. and didn't teach it. He taught his religious beliefs as if they were science.

As soon as you start using expressions like "brainwash kids with Darwinism", you advertise that you aren't interested in teaching science, either, and that you are irrational about evaluating it.

Dave Luckett said: Freshwater didn't teach critical evaluation of science. and didn't teach it. He taught his religious beliefs as if they were science. As soon as you start using expressions like "brainwash kids with Darwinism", you advertise that you aren't interested in teaching science, either, and that you are irrational about evaluating it.

There is only one scientific theory covering the origin of the species - the theory of evolution. There are no others. The "opposing views" you speak of are not scientific theories, they are religious doctrines, or (much more rarely) simply crackpot ideas held without or in spite of evidence - neo-lamarkianism, saltation, alien manipulation, others even more strange.

Being a scientific theory, the theory of evolution is entirely based on evidence from nature, and not religious doctrine. It has religious implications only if your religion insists on doctrines that are contradicted by evidence from nature. That reliance on evidence from nature is one reason why it's a scientific theory, and "opposing views" are not.

As with all scientific theories, but unlike religious doctrine, there is no claim to absolute revealed truth in the theory of evolution - what you call "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt". The only claim is that the theory of evolution follows the evidence. That disavowal of revealed and absolute truth is another reason why it is a scientific theory, but "opposing views" are not.

Since evolution is the only scientific theory that covers the origin of the species, it is the only one that should be taught in science classes. Otherwise, what is being taught is not science. It is most likely religious dogma, and teaching that has been repeatedly found by the courts, including the Supreme Court, to be in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.

rc19 said: If you only teach one scientific theory and refuse to teach any opposing views, you are brainwashing, or at least depriving students of critical thinking on the subject. By accusing teachers teaching biology with views outside of Darwinism to be religiously motivated while pretending teachers teaching Darwinism are not, even though Darwinism has religious implications and cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically but instead relies on circumstantial evidence interpreted through the religious beliefs of the scientist, is hypocritical, to say the least. This is not the way of critical thinkers.

Jay said: The article says: "The third sentence has another falsehood: In 2006, [Freshwater] won Outstanding Teacher of the Year, and has always earned excellent evaluations. Freshwater’s evaluations were excellent, as best I know, but he never received an “Outstanding Teacher of the Year” award because the Mt. Vernon district has never had such an award in the 40 years I’ve lived here. He did receive a couple of “Distinguished Teacher” awards.." Hoppe said in the introduction: "Every sentence has an error of fact." However, his sentence also has an error of logic. from the above sentence, Hoppe concluded that Freshwater did not receive "outstanding teacher of the year" so other good evaluation cannot be reliable. That is his personal like or dislike issue, not persuasive speculation of the fact.

rc19 said:

Dave Luckett said: Freshwater didn't teach critical evaluation of science. and didn't teach it. He taught his religious beliefs as if they were science. As soon as you start using expressions like "brainwash kids with Darwinism", you advertise that you aren't interested in teaching science, either, and that you are irrational about evaluating it.

If you only teach one scientific theory and refuse to teach any opposing views, you are brainwashing, or at least depriving students of critical thinking on the subject. By accusing teachers teaching biology with views outside of Darwinism to be religiously motivated while pretending teachers teaching Darwinism are not, even though Darwinism has religious implications and cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically but instead relies on circumstantial evidence interpreted through the religious beliefs of the scientist, is hypocritical, to say the least. This is not the way of critical thinkers.

Really? And exactly what would those "religious beliefs of the scientists" be? You must keep in mind that not all scientists are atheists. Not all are christians. Not all are any one religion. So do tell. Are you just making shit up? Or are you just parroting the party line in your favorite creationist circle? Exactly what is this religious belief that all scientists share? NOTE: methodological naturalism is not a religion. You really don't want to got there do you?

the moment you gullibly looked up at your science teacher, robed in his/her confident presuppositions, with awe, as if he/she was some unbiased prophet of truth

Every single thing you say is demonstrably wrong.

"Methodological naturalism" means only that natural causes are assumed in nature, because natural causes are the only causes that can be investigated by natural means. It does not mean that natural causes are necessarily the only causes, and even if it did, that need not mean that there is no God, for God can operate through natural causes.

Methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of God, nothing about what he is or does or wants, nothing about about how he is to be worshipped, nothing about doctrine or dogma, nothing about right conduct, morality or ethics. It only says that nature is to be investigated with the assumption of natural means and natural causes. It is absolutely not religious in nature.

But it has been so extraordinarily fruitful over the last five or so centuries as to be unassailable. Rail against it as you will; the results mock you. The very world you live in gives you the lie.

Sedimentary layers, by definition, form under water, compacting slowly into rock over ages. They are not volcanic mudflows or pyroclastic flows or ash falls, and geologists easily distinguish between them. Under volcanic ash, trees can begin to mineralise quickly. Under sedimentary conditions, the process can be, and often is, very slow. Trees have been found unmineralised under 20000 years' worth of varve sedimentation.

Dating methods from isotopic decay paths are perfectly accurate within the inherent uncertainties of all measurement systems, and they rely on nothing less than the fundamental properties of matter. Yes, the sample taken has to be uncontaminated; it must consist of material that was actually formed by the event that is being dated, without inclusions of other material; it must contain sufficient of the isotope involved to allow accurate measurement; and of course the isotope being measured must have a half-life significant to the age of the material. There have been various creationist attempts to discredit these dating techniques. Every single one of them, without exception, failed one or more of these requirements, usually in a knowingly fraudulent way.

There is no evidence whatsoever for fiat creation of any living thing, nor any feature of any living thing. If you think different, point it out. But you have not, and you can't. The most you have managed is to assert that some features of the Earth are young. So they are. But many others are very old; and the Earth is as old as its oldest features.

You hate science and scientists, and your language is plain evidence for that. You have no reason to; science and scientists have done you no harm and much good. The fact that you return slander and insult for that gives the lie to any claim of yours to virtue, or even honest ignorance. You are simply malicious.

No doubt science will continue to face creationism and "intelligent design" in court. They are the same thing, as the court concluded in Kitzmiller vs the Dover School District Board, and your denial of that fact is as worthless as the rest of your denials. So far, science has won every court challenge. Bring it on then; but have the basic decency and guts to use your own money, not that of some hapless school district or individual teacher.

Basic decency and guts in a creationist. Good heavens, what am I saying?

rc19 said:

Really? And exactly what would those "religious beliefs of the scientists" be? You must keep in mind that not all scientists are atheists. Not all are christians. Not all are any one religion. So do tell. Are you just making shit up? Or are you just parroting the party line in your favorite creationist circle? Exactly what is this religious belief that all scientists share? NOTE: methodological naturalism is not a religion. You really don't want to got there do you?

Yes, perhaps I do. Religious faith includes ideas about origin and purpose. Methodological naturalism demands a particular outcome. No matter what the facts seem to be, no matter what history asserts, no matter what personal experience suggests, methodological naturalism demands there is no divine intervention in natural processes, past or present. This IS religious in its assertion, and it is unnecessarily restrictive in its possible outcomes. Even if sedimentary layers from mud and ash are formed quickly after the eruption of Mt St Helens, you don't care. Even if trees began petrifying within a year, you don't care. Even if radiology was proven inaccurate, you don't care. Even if more evidence exists for intelligent design and microevolution/adaptation than macroevolution, you don't care. You don't even like these terms because, although they distinguish between significantly different concepts of evolution, they do not support your preferred outcome. Your methodological naturalism demands that all observations are forced into natural causes. You do not allow for divine creation, even if things reproducing "after their own kind" is evidenced millions of times in front of your face daily. You are stubborn, blind, stupid sheep following the status quo, not caring that your theories are built on unproven theories treated as truth until they become cultural assumptions. You are ever so zealous, as any religious zealot should be, and you don't care, because your mind was made up from the moment you gullibly looked up at your science teacher, robed in his/her confident presuppositions, with awe, as if he/she was some unbiased prophet of truth. Whether you believe in God/gods/nirvana/nothing-but-meaningless-star-dust, you are making demands on reality that it does not demand of itself and influencing your related religious beliefs accordingly. You are, therefore, absolutely subjective and religious in your presuppositions, and your claims otherwise are disingenuous. This is why you will continue to face ID and creationism (two separate views and approaches to evidence) in court; we are disgusted by your blatant hypocrisy and mind-numbing close-mindedness.

If I choose to respond to the lying troll again, my responses will be on the bathroom wall. I suggest that others do the same until the moderators figure out that his off topic nonsense is designed to do nothing but disrupt.

DS said: If I choose to respond to the lying troll again, my responses will be on the bathroom wall. I suggest that others do the same until the moderators figure out that his off topic nonsense is designed to do nothing but disrupt.