Skip to comments.Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers
Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
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.
I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom wallsbanners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!
Mr. Johnsons appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.
As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,
The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the schools science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general. The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove all religious articles from his classroom, including a Bible.
Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theoryor hypothesis, ratherthat seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolutionwhich is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanismsis the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.
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 bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwaters Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,
Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwaters consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one students arm.
While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside, community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwaters teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwaters religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwaters employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for good and just cause.
The supposed good and just cause was Mr. Freshwaters allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwaters counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involvedGASP!arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!
According to the School Board, this good and just cause amounted to Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum. That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!
Mr. Freshwater was also accused of Disobedience of Orders, because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled Jesus of Nazareth. Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of defiance.
This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,
Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people dont need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.
The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.
As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.
The conclusion of Mr. Freshwaters appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,
The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.
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.
We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institutes information page,
The Institutes mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistanceand hopeto thousands.
I can understand teaching math, science, English etc. But why teach evolution? It is only a theory after all. It has NEVER been proven. In that case why not teach creationism too? Just present it as a theory. If people argue that it isn’t true then use that against their argument to teach evolution; it isn’t true either. And if they say evolution is true tell them to prove it!
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Evolution must be taught inclusive of its ‘flaws’. Cover all bases. We did not evolve FROM ‘apes’.
But WHY must evolution be taught? Who makes that determination? And using the same argument how about we teach creationism?
Schools should all be privatized. The government should stay out of it.
"Only a theory"? In science, a theory is a description of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena that has been verified to some degree--such as the atomic theory or the theory of relativity.
On the other hand, Adam and Eve is only a story.
As much as you’d like to group evolution with those other theories it is NOT even remotely in the same realm. No one can prove evolution between different kinds b/c it is not a hard science ~ it is simply one historical interpretation that may or may not be true. Science can NEVER re-create millions nor billions of years of natural history.
Furthermore, if one honestly reviews, re-examines, re-evaluates and separates the facts from the just-so story-telling it appears that devolution is the more likely process where all lifeforms are on their way to extinction. After all only 99.9% of all lifeforms that ever lived are currently extinct.
See my links FR homepage for more info.
This ping list is for the other articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
That's funny coming from someone who believes in evolution.
The ToE is based only on forensic evidence and extrapolation of variation within species. It's not science by any stretch of the imagination. It's philosophy.
Here in Michigan it is part of the standardized state curriculum that all schools are expected to teach, and it is measured on the MEAP standardized test. It is ridiculous and one reason I am glad I no longer teach Biology in the public schools. Evolution is given an enormous amount of time in the high school curriculum, and local control has largely been taken away by the same leftover Sixties Leftist bureaucrats that took over everything else.
Biology teachers used to be able to focus on the nature that surrounds the typical rural student and go from there (reasoning from the concrete to the abstract). The standardized curriculum now typically goes the other way (starting with the abstract, the unproven, and the microscopic ). It is not a good way to get the attention of children.
To wit.... “unproven, unobserved theory of evolution”.
All theories are “unproven”. They are all provisional awaiting conflicting data. All theories are therefore “unproven” - once something is “proven” it is not subject to review refinement or rejection - a scientific theory always must be.
As to “unobserved” - that is just idiotic.
If evolution was “unobserved” then last years flu vaccination should be just as good as this years. In fact, there would be no need to update flu vaccinations at all.
If Americans came from Europeans - why are there still Europeans?
If dogs came from wolves - why are there still wolves?
Been a long time since we had a good ol' fashioned FReeper CrEvo thread.
Well . . . at least another reason for the separation of School and State.
Thanks for the beep!
Ah, a combo "strawman" and "proof by arrogant condescension" with a half-twist.
I give it a 4, but the Russian judge gives you a 9.8.
Yeah . . . at least a week or two.
( ^8 }
I don’t see your argument with his statement
Most of those who are on the side opposing science are not generally very scientific, and can’t understand when you try to talk about method
for example, global warming is more like a religion than a science, with politics thrown in. (the worst of both- blind faith, and truth determined by ‘concensus’)
Whose creationism? The Vedic story? The Mormon version? HP Lovecraft's?
Once you open the door, you will not be able to close it if, for example, a Muslim teacher brings his religious doctrine into your child's school.
Of course not, because in the very next statement, you restate his strawman as if it were a fact to build on.
Once you open the door, you will not be able to close it if, for example, a Muslim teacher brings his religious doctrine into your child's school.
So instead the atheists, hypocritically, demand that THEIR creation account be allowed and nobody else's because they've managed to hookwink a lot of unsuspecting people into thinking that it's somehow *neutral* in it's position because it allegedly doesn't favor one religion over another.
But it's not neutral. It cannot be because it takes a position on the existence of God as opposed to which God.
It's no less religious than any religion which purports a god. Humanism is based on philosophical constructs just like any other religion.
So, if no other religion is permitted time in school for their creation account, neither should the humanist atheists be allowed to push their creation account on other's children at tax payer expense.
The creationism belongs to christians. The schools are definitely not christian, they are public and those of all faiths attend. There are gaps and flaws in evolution and there are some findings that show species change. That can be called a form of evolution or adaption or even extinction.
Man was here long before those who read Genesis literally. It is my view that when mankind progressed in intellectual capability where he was able to be in touch with his spiritual sense...that God then touched him and revealed Himself. If Adam and Eve were the first and only humans...where did their son’s find marriage partners? Seriously, God did create but not in the literal interpretation of ‘creationists’. ‘
There are private and religious schools. Not everyone can afford them.
So yes Virginia - Creationists are anti-science. The only type of science they like is Creation Science which is not science at all as its methodology is in direct opposition to the scientific method.
Moreover it is to be expected that Creationists are not very conversant or knowledgeable about science - as the less educated someone is - the more likely they are to be a creationist.
That being said - creationists cannot seem to help sounding like total idiots talking about theories being unproven and offering up inane idiocy like if humans evolved from apes - why are there still apes?.
That is the general level of knowledge about science and evolution we have to deal with from people on the creationist side.
Do you think the theory of nuclear fusion takes a position on the existence of God because it describes a physical means whereby God can create a star? Does the creation of stars through nuclear fusion mean that God did not create that star?
Not just atheist and humanists accept the theory of evolution; we have, for example, Pope Benedict XVI.
because you say so.
Anyone who knows the first thing about the theory of evolution knows that it has been repeatedly disproved by all the evidence available. Evolution is supposed to have happened very slowly over billions of years but actually the fossil record shows that doesn’t happen. The theory of evolution does not even begin to explain the diversity of life on Earth. It’s wrong, plain and simple.
Instead of plate techtonics creationists have “hydroplate” so called theory.
Instead of astronomy creationists have God “stretching out the Heavens” to account for the billions of light years.
Instead of half-life decay rates to detect the age of objects creationists have “you can't do that!”.
Instead of archeology and linguistics and human genetics to explain differences between human populations creationists have the “Tower of Babel” and the “three sons of Noah”.
Instead of paleontology creationists have a “Global Flood”.
Creationists oppose science because THEY say so Mr. B.
The theory of evolution is nothing more than an lie about how all life came into being accidentally for no reason, with no direction or purpose and not created by any design. The theory of evolution is a psychological crutch for those who have rejected God. They have to believe in evolution because it validates their irrational belief in a Godless meaningless universe.
Evolution is the theory about how life, once it exists, is subject to change through natural selection of genetic variation.
When the Pope says evolution is a reality that enriches our understanding of life - is that to validate his irrational belief in a Godless meaningless universe?
As to the ‘creationists’ using the date of 6000 years ago...for the creation of man, that is sheer ignorance or denial. Right there is a major flaw. I have personally studied, reviewed and encountered prehistoric human ‘remains’ dating well before 6000 years ago. The evolution theory is flawed in many major areas, however the existence of man kind as we know it from the earliest findings shows many adaptive differences and extinctions.
Read about the Cambrian explosion. Evolution cannot account for this. There is nothing in the Bible which states that Genesis must be a tenet of faith. Mankind does so much the bastardizing of the entire Bible and this does not serve God nor what He wishes for or from mankind.
You haven’t investigated SQUAT of what creation scientists “say”. You prove it in every thread.
You put up a strawman of what YOU say they say,
then beat the crap out of it, while we sit back and watch your flailing talkinoucherass “arguments”.
The theory of evolution says that all life is descended from one single common ancestor. This absurd claim cannot possibly ever be proved and is a religious belief based entirely on circular logic.
There is nothing in the evolution theory that is antithetical to God. The creationists are antithetical to the existence of mankind.
evolution is not a theory. it is akin to saying the theor of gravity. This is just a slow motion skopes trial. Farmers have been using natural seclection for millendia. even humans use it when searching for a mate. nobody wants short fat and ugly.
Abiogenesis = a hypothesis about how life could come about through physical means.
Universal Common Ancestry = a theory to explain how all known life shares features of common ancestry.
Evolution = a theory about how life changes in response to selective pressure upon genetic variations within a population.
For the typical Creation story to be true - all terrestrial life had to have come from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions. This entails semi-universal common ancestry between “kinds”, and speciation and evolution at a rate far beyond that proposed by evolutionary biology.
So the difference seems to be that creationists accept evolution so long as you don't call it evolution, they accept speciation and common descent - but only within a non defined “kind” - and at a very rapid rate.
Do you think mice and rats are the same “kind”?
Are tigers and lions the same “kind” or a different “kind”?
Are old world vultures and new world vultures the same “kind”?
@Tailgunner Joe: The interesting thing is that the straight meaning of evolution is directional change, progress if you will (though what that progress is pointing towards, well, that's beyond our understanding); rather, the whole thing with evolution (as described as a scientific theory) is about adapting to one's environment so as to better reproduce.
Fittingly, any Darwinist that tries to assert the superiority of his theory immediately falls out of step with the Darwinian ideal, for how can one utilize an absolute standard if your criteria are dependent upon location and circumstance (for some reason, it's no longer clear to some that absolutes are universal).
sharing with all other members of this group the need to feed on organic matter (unlike plants which can create energy using light and minerals)
The Chordate (or vertebrate)
sharing with all other members of this group of animals, a back bone with a hollow nerve chord
sharing with all other members of this group of vertebrates, the ability to feed their offspring on milk and having a body covering which includes fur
Sharing with all other members of this group of mammals, a thumb that can be opposed to the other digits, binocular vision and various more broadly defined characteristics (including high intelligence, relatively long maturation period for the young, dental similarities, tendency for complex social organization, and generally bearing one or two young)
Sharing with other members of this group of primates, a slightly longer nose, smaller brain, long slender limbs, a tail, more specific dental features including the grooming comb formed by the lower incisor and canine teeth
Sharing with other members of this group of lemurs, scent marking methods, vocalizations, aspects of social structure and overall body shape
The Ring-tailed Lemur Species
then no farmer could ever have bread a prize bull.
the modern banana would not exist.
corn would not be that long yellow ear but a short stubby miscolored earthtone.
Dog shows would not allow new breeds.
I find it interesting that the religious arguments are entirely based on the conclusion that no science can exist before god. While the science does not require the absence of god.
Evolution is inevitable in any living system that uses DNA as its genetic material.
We have observed speciation. One species can evolve into different species and it has been observed in the lab and in nature.
If you don't accept speciation - how did every single terrestrial species fit on the Ark? Don't most creationists think that one rodent “kind” could give rise to all contemporaneous rodent species?
“The other side sux!”
LOL- I guess you are one of them
Do you even know what a strawman is?
And yet we still have short, fat, and ugly (look at democraps) You would thing evolution theory would have made them all go away and everyone beautiful
Evolution theorist (the godless democrap fanatics, usually) deny creationism as a 'theory' while creationists do NOT deny evolutions - we can see both as 'theory' and question them
for example, evolution predicts certain things that we don't find (show me the millions of dead skeletons with a precursor Eyeball) . We just suddenly see full and complete eyeballs
That is a valid scientific argument (it may be wrong, who knows?) but it is valid. Evolutionists deny creation as having any valid argument- they cannot accept that there might be other theories other than their own, like it is a religion to them. Global warming propagandists are the same way.
Then it could also have "arisen independently" many hundreds and thousands of times and descended along many unrelated lines. That is not the theory of evolution as taught in the classroom.
To assume that the speciation of microscopic lifeforms proves that all species evolved from other species is a giant logical leap. It's a non-sequitur. It just does not follow that observing speciation proves that all species speciate, much less that all species are descended from one single common ancestor. The theory of evolution is built upon a mountain of such logical fallacies. For example, your argument appealing to the authority of the Pope does not help make the case that evolution is not a religious belief based entirely on faith and philosophic world-view.
You can breed whatever kind of dog you want but it’ll still be a dog. You’ll never see a dog give birth to a cat though. Dogs only give birth to other dogs.
That's actually a good question. See here...
Should we teach evolution in school? Sure! We can use this material: Inbred Science to explain to the kiddies what evolution is really all about. Likewise we can teach kids about communism by making them read The Black Book of Communism and a condensed version of The Gulag Archipelago. Those two courses would immediately grind out sharper students. A simple modification like that to the education system can save America.
Long ago there was an England. England copulated with a foreign power and left many offspring, who likewise left many descendants. But, to paraphrase Darwin in single-quotes for the rest of this tedious exercise, each nation-state strove to increase in a geometrical ratio. Each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, had to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. Soon the earth became full of nations struggling for food and struggling to reproduce as many offspring as they possibly could, in a geometric ratio preferably.
Natural selection, always intently watching each slight alteration in politics, economy or national make-up; and carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends to produce a better nation. We must suppose each new state to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In nations, hereditary variation will cause the slight alterations in constitutions, laws, method of government, etc, and generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of nations of many kinds; and may we not believe that a nation like America might thus be formed as superior to England, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? Natural selection was daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations of these offspring nations, rejecting those that were bad, preserving those that were good. As natural selection acts by life and death, by the survival of the fittest, and by the destruction of the less well-fitted nations, it preserved and accumulated nations with a twinge of America-ness while old England-like variations, being inferior, were rigidly destroyed in the struggle for existence. Thus was America born.
This article sure seems to support that.
So species don't speciate - unless they do - and at many thousands of times the usual rate?
The evidence - of Endogenous Retrovirus - of gene families - of nested hierarchies of similarity in DNA - and others - all support the common descent of species.
Observing speciation doesn't mean that all species will speciate. That is correct. But any species that uses DNA will be subject to change. Change is inevitable. DNA replication itself causes change.
I am not appealing to the authority of the Pope that evolution is true - just that it is consistent with a faith in God. If you state something cannot be - that one cannot accept evolution and have faith in God - then it would be incumbent upon you to explain how the Pope and many other millions of Christians have no faith in God.
But that is a theological argument - if you want to argue the evidence - read up on endogenous retroviral sequences and get back to me.
When you have a basic understanding of the evidence then you might credibly argue the nature of the evidence.
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.
Atheists are the most “fervent” in defending the godless government schools. Gee! Why not? Government schools are taxpayer funded temples of atheism. Isn’t that convenient for them?!
Axiom: It is **impossible** to have a religiously neutral school.
Corollary: Government schools are not now, and **never** have been, religiously neutral!
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing all K-12 education. End the government schools wars over curriculum.