Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The hearings concerning faux-science teacher John Freshwater continue in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. Dick Hoppe is attending the hearings and filing reports at the Panda's Thumb. Here are some highlights. On Day 3 of the hearings, the student into whose arm Freshwater burned the cross with a Tesla coil testified. Some of what came out there reveals why Freshwater has no business teaching any science class. Like using creationist videos:
Zach testified that Freshwater brought up religion in class in several ways. First, he used a video, "The Watchmaker," that likens life to a watch (Paley, anyone?). Millstone showed the video in the hearing room. It's pure Paley, and was produced by Truth4kids.com. Truth4kids is run by an engineer named Dave Hawkins, known on multiple web forums as "afdave." Dave also blogs at Truthmatters, and he is a young-earth creationist.
And using silly creationist arguments and artifacts that any science teacher should know are nonsense:
Zach testified that Freshwater used a handout which said that someone had taken a sample from a Mt. St. Helen's deposit after the eruption and had it "carbon dated" and it came back dated at millions of years old, when it was supposedly from a 10 year-old deposit by the volcano.
This is standard young earth creationist absurdity. I suspect Zach misunderstood part of this, since you can't carbon date rock samples like would come from Mt. St. Helen's, but I also suspect that misunderstanding comes from Freshwater's teaching. Creationists love to attack carbon dating and use it as an attack on all forms of radiometric dating, which is ridiculous. But the mere fact that Freshwater was using Mt. St. Helen's to attack dating methods means he cribbed it from creationist materials; this is a very common creationist argument. And it doesn't end there:
Either in a handout or in class Freshwater was claimed to have repeated the tired YEC moon dust argument.
Forget the religious elements to this, let's be blunt: if Freshwater claimed that the amount of moon dust on the moon has something to do with the earth being younger than scientists believe it to be, he's a moron who has no business sweeping the floor in a science class, much less teaching it. This is truly the dumbest argument in the young earth lexicon, utterly discredited even by his fellow creationists.
Zach testified that Freshwater used Answers in Genesis as an internet resource in class, and assigned Zach to do some reading of AIG.Zach testified that Freshwater taught what he called "hydrosphere theory." Asked to describe it, Zach outlined another creationist classic, Water Vapor Canopy. Freshwater apparently didn't explicitly tie that to Noah's Flood, though Zach testified that's how he interpreted it.
More creationist nonsense.
Zach testified that Freshwater had a signaling system, so when the class encountered something in text or lecture that wasn't necessarily true, like an old earth, they were to signal that by saying "Here!" The meaning was that no one was there to see it, and therefore it is not necessarily trustworthy.
Sound to me like he knew he was violating the law by teaching creationism and was trying to find any way he could to get his anti-evolution message across to his students.
When Freshwater took the stand, he admitted to burning hundreds of students with the Tesla coil, something he had previously denied:
Millstone called John Freshwater as a hostile witness for direct examination. First Millstone rehearsed various public statements Freshwater has made: that hed never burned or branded an student and had never taught creationism. Millstone played videos of Freshwater speaking to the Board of Education in August 2008 and an interview with Fox News sometime in the summer (I didn't get the URL for the latter). Both supported the assertions above...He testified that he'd used the Tesla coil on somewhere in the range of 500 to 600 students through the years. He identified two examples of Tesla coils that had been removed from the middle school as similar to the one he'd used, but said that he still has the one he used. Pressed by Millstone, Freshwater did not account for taking the school property home. Asked "Were you authorized b anyone to take it from the school?" he answered "No."
Asked what a Tesla coil is used for, he responded to show gases of different colors when ionized, and to study human reactions. (That last may not be a direct quote, but it's close.) Asked what Tesla coils are used for outside the classroom, he responded that he didn't know.
No, it's not used to study "human reactions" or anything like them. But this science teacher, while knowing that this thing generated 20,000 volts, had never bothered to read the instruction manual that says it is never to be brought in contact with human skin:
He testified that he knew the Tesla coil generated over 20,000 volts, but doesn't know how long he's known that - perhaps 21 years (the length of time he's been teaching in Mt. Vernon.). He wouldn't say if 20,000 volts to 45,000 volts is "high" voltage. He wasn't certain if he knew previously that it operated at 500 KHz. He doesn't know if the small amount of ozone produced by its operation is hazardous. He had never seen an instruction manual for the device. He was shown the instruction manual downloaded from the manufacturer's web site by the independent investigator. He was asked to read into the record excerpts from it bearing on the safety warning to not allow it to touch skin.
He denied seeing a mark on Zachary after the shock, and did not recall calling it a temporary tattoo or a cross. He did acknowledge saying he put an "X" on Zachary's arm. He denied that the pictures taken by Jenifer Dennis and entered as exhibits were an accurate depiction of what was on Zachary's arm.
"Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
In the afternoon session Millstone turned to the issue of religious displays in Freshwater's classroom. After establishing the timeline for their removal (Apr 6-16 2008), Millstone asked about the two books Freshwater checked out of the middle school library and placed on his science table in the classroom. They were a Bible and a book titled "Jesus of Nazareth." Asked why he had them there, Freshwater responded that since he'd been instructed to keep his own Bible out of sight during class time and had not done so, he was afraid he'd come into his classroom some morning and find his own Bible gone and wanted the other available since the Bible is his inspiration.
This just points out the pure hypocrisy of these people. Can you even begin to imagine the reaction if a Muslim science teacher had a copy of the Quran and a book about Muhammad sitting out on the science table in his classroom because they are his "inspiration"? That teacher would be lucky to escape with his life. From a legal standpoint, a Bible is precisely identical in all respects. The only possible purpose for having them there is to proselytize, they have nothing to do with what the teacher is supposed to be teaching.
He also admitted to giving out assignments from the AIG site:
He was asked if Answers in Genesis is an apologetics site. He didn't know, and characterized it as an "informational" site. He was then asked to read into the record the first paragraph from the AIG "About Us" page identifying it as an apologetics ministry. He acknowledged referring Zachary to AIG, and also showed the AIG site in class. He acknowledged making AIG-based assignments to perhaps a dozen students in the 2007-8 school year.
He also showed that he doesn't have any idea what a scientific theory is:
Asked to define a scientific theory, he responded "Something that's backed up with scientific information and knowledge, that's not completely proved. It's not a law yet."
I'd flunk a student for giving that answer, much less a teacher. But this is my favorite part:
Handed two worksheets, "Giraffes" and "Woodpeckers," he acknowledged that the last question on each was identical: "Was an ID involved?" Freshwater denied knowing whether "ID" in that context meant "intelligent designer," and could not recall where he got the worksheets.
This is the "I am a moron" excuse. And speaking of morons:
Asked if he used a Kent Hovind video, he said "Pieces of it. It relates to the standards that I teach to." Asked what pieces, he responded "It's about whales, moths." Asked what it purports to teach or show, he responded "It examines evolution. It's showing evidence of evolution. It's talking about the evolving (sic) of whales." He would not disagree that it is questioning evolution.
As if AIG isn't bad enough, he even showed Hovind videos.
Asked why he kept Wells' Icons of Evolution in his room, Freshwater responded that "It's looking at evolution and the icons of it." He agreed that it was not supportive of evolution.Then a reprise of videos: Does he have a video called "Ten Lies of Evolution" in his room? "Yes." Does he have a book titled "Refuting Evolution" in his room? "Yes." Has he shown a video on the Loch Ness Monster that says the earth is less than 6,000 years old? Not since 2003.
In other words, he repeatedly showed creationist videos while denying he taught creationism.
Politics
Comments
In other words, he repeatedly showed creationist videos while denying he taught creationism.
It doesn't sound like he had time to teach anything else.
"Was an ID involved?" Freshwater denied knowing whether "ID" in that context meant "intelligent designer,"
So he denied understanding the questions he was asking his students. This is going to end up well for him.
Posted by: Odie | November 7, 2008 10:02 AM
Sheesh, more taxpayer's money that should be going for education being siphoned off to protect it from the creationists.
I know the liberal agenda is to force everyone to be like them, but could we please let the religious fundies take their kids out of government schools so the fundies don't feel so compelled to take over the curriculum?
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 10:28 AM
I know the liberal agenda is to force everyone to be like them
Quiet down, if the public realizes that the true motive of liberals is to eradicate marriages between a man and a woman and to require an atheist oath to hold office, they will brand "liberal" with a negative connotation.
Posted by: Odie | November 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Resistance is futile. Soon all will conform to the liberal ideals of individually and non-conformity.
Absolutely, home schooling and religious private schools should be legal. Good thing they are.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 10:51 AM
"Was an ID involved?"
Why most certainly an Inveterate Dipshit is involved in this (well, with Hovind's electronic presence, make that 2 IDs).
Also involved is an Imbecelic Defendant.
an Impotent Dandrufflake
an Illegitimate Defecant
an Intelligence Desert
an Ill Dodo
an Instructor . . . Done
Posted by: marnk | November 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Michael, while part of me agrees with you, part of me always asks "why should we condemn the kids of these Fundies to ignorance when at least some of them really want to learn about the world around them?"
Posted by: kodiak | November 7, 2008 10:59 AM
I first heard that 'theory' when I was about seven years old and I thought it was stupid then.
Posted by: Alex, FCD | November 7, 2008 11:17 AM
If your post is satire, please forgive me in advance for it going over my head. It won't be the first time nor will it be the last. I'll assume it's not satire.
Thank you Michael for communicating that conservatives consider it a waste of money to spend taxpayer money defending school children in court from teachers that burn them with electrical devices. I'll accept that differentiation.
As for your possible reference to Freshwater teaching religious notions rather than science as another contributing differentiation - I too will gladly accept that difference. Thanks for being so clear about the fact that conservatives would rather teach religion in science classes rather than science.
As for your request that fundies should be allowed the right to take their children out of the public schools; they already possess this right. It breaks my heart when I hear of this happening. For those of us that are ex-fundies, this was often the only opportunity we had to understand the difference between education and indoctrination and who was doing what to whom.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 7, 2008 11:24 AM
Anyone else reminded of Dover when, I can't remember which board member is was, tried to defend the school board's decision to have a pro-ID statement read in class, by claiming that she didn't know what ID was (even though she had voted to include it)?
And how the hell does it fly that Freshwater didn't know if ID meant Intelligent Design when he apparently submitted a "objective origins" policy to the school board in 2003?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Michael Heath,
This is another post that's primarily satirical, but I haven't had much luck with that in the past couple of days.
My, probably convuluted, thinking is this: If the fundies were allowed to take their children and their money out of public schools, then perhaps there would no longer be incidents like this, Kitzmiller and other church/state separation cases that cost already strapped school districts so much time and money.
While fundies are allowed to "free" their children from the clutches of the secularist schools, they still have to pay for them. And, as there should be no taxation without representation, once they have to pay, they are allowed to influence and attempt to control.
Since there is no middle-ground between most of the social ideas of fundies and what the rest of us believe about the age of the earth, the rights of women, children, and homosexuals, and the role of government wrt to interfering in people's personal lives, then the fundies are basically being forced to pay for schools that teach ideas that are antagonistic to their own.
And, while I agree in theory that fundie kids should be exposed to ideas outside of those of their families, that theory is trumped by the right of parents to raise their children as the parents see fit (with the usual exceptions for physical neglect and abuse and such).
So I cannot reconcile forcing fundie parents to pay for government schools and not letting them have their say in how those schools are run. If they are not allowed to get what they pay for, then they shouldn't be forced to pay.
Why is that unfair?
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 11:49 AM
So I cannot reconcile forcing fundie parents to pay for government schools and not letting them have their say in how those schools are run. If they are not allowed to get what they pay for, then they shouldn't be forced to pay.
So let's suppose a group of taxpayers objected to the use of water as a firefighting tool and preferred that the fire department use giant portable fans to try to put out blazes. Could you reconcile forcing these people to pay for government fire fighting services while not letting them have their say in how those services are run? Or would you suggest that they be allowed to live in a "no firefighting with water" zone and not be required to pay that portion of their taxes.
Posted by: Odie | November 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Is it just me, or are there a disproportionate number of engineers among the YEC hordes? As an engineering undergrad student, I find this rather disconcerting.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Michael Enquist wrote:
The way I would put it, is that the parents are getting what they want: they want their children to be taught the best science. Ask them, and they'll readily agree. Science is important. Therefore, they want good science taught in public school science class. That is what they're paying for.
And it's what they're getting.
The problem of course is that they're clearly not competent to judge the difference between good, sound science -- and the pseudoscience they're being handed by authorities who should know better. They've been misled. There is no scientific controversy.
So fundamentalist parents do have a say in what their kids are taught -- and they say they want their kids to have a basic understanding of well-established science. But they do not have a say in the results of scientific consensus.
The conflict then isn't really between the fundamentalist parents and the public schools. It's an internal conflict within the fundamentalist parents themselves: they want two things, and you can't have both.
Posted by: Sastra | November 7, 2008 12:29 PM
Adrian: Google "Salem Hypothesis".
Ed: One quibble about the Tesla coil. People keep tossing around the "20,000 volts" figure like it meant something, ie. you should automatically *know* not to shock people with it. Not so. The static shock you can get from touching a doorknob after shuffling across the carpet on a dry day can get into that range (Rule of thumb: breakdown strength of dry air is ~30kv per centimeter; you can estimate the voltage from the length of the spark). The more important issue is the current (especially when it comes to hazards like causing cardiac arrest).
I'm not an expert on electrical hazards, but in this case I suspect the high frequency and the duration of the contact is more of an issue, as that's what causes the burns.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 7, 2008 12:30 PM
They front engineers to give some gloss of competence to their arguments.
Posted by: Lance | November 7, 2008 12:33 PM
Michael Enquist, they do have a say and that's fine and good. But having a say is not the same as getting one's way. Teaching creationism as science in a public school is a violation of the First Amendment.
Note also that this teacher was not following the approved curricula. He took it upon himself to break the law and use his classroom to indoctrinate children into his faith. That's about as far from parents having a say as you can get.
As for paying for public schools, an educated society is to the benefit of everyone. I have no children, but my taxes still go to pay for schools and I'm glad they do. In fact I wish a larger percentage of my money went to education, because one day these kids are going to exert tremendous influence on the quality of my life.
Adrian W., Interesting observation. I wonder how many watchmakers are YEC's as well.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 12:35 PM
Adrian W "Is it just me, or are there a disproportionate number of engineers among the YEC hordes?"
Engineers design. As such, they'll see "design" everywhere. This is similar to the way a photographer sees the world as a photograph, or a fan of PacMan sees the dots on the road as power pellets. Maybe that last one is just me.
"As an engineering undergrad student, I find this rather disconcerting."
As long as you don't just read engineering stuff and AIG, you'll do fine. ToE should fit the engineer's mindset, anyway. It's a series of "improvements" to make an object better fit it's environment, with each step being an experiment and with the unsuccessful experiments being removed (the random, unguided nature of the experiments is probably problematic, though. Of course, the poor, cobbled together nature of the "designs" should trouble the YEC engineers, and since the earliest "designs" aren't perfect it would take some mental gymnastics to blame it on ''The Fall'').
I've probably just horribly mangled ToE and Creationism to make them fit, but analogies aren't perfect. If they were they wouldn't be analogies.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 7, 2008 12:36 PM
Adrian,
I'm a retired engineer and I have long been deeply embarrassed by the profound stupidity of many of my ex-colleagues.
Don
Posted by: DonM | November 7, 2008 12:36 PM
Nope, just like they can't take their money out of public roads so long as they promise to never use them. It's part of our government, and they are free to use the services or not as they prefer, but they cannot opt out of the responsibility for them unless they renounce their citizenship and move.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 7, 2008 12:58 PM
SLC - thanks for the links and your perspective. Hopefully I'll get to those later in the day or tomorrow.
Regarding the engineering point. I would conflate engineers with medical doctors and name the group practioners. Having worked closely with thousands of engineers, it is my perspective that our educational system fails all of us by not teaching more generic disciplines like:
Scientific methodology
Critical Thinking
Statistics - especially hands on design and interpretation
Quantitative Problem solving
Process & Systems - Development & Continuous Improvement
DOE - design of experiments
Philosophy
It's pretty easy to become and be a viable, contributing practioner while avoiding the above disciplines, all of which are directed towards using the tools available to think your way through issues and challenges.
I'd prefer zero functional degrees at the undergrad level to accommodate a more stringent bachelor of science approach. Get your specialty in grad school when you've matured more and have a better perspective in where you want your professional career to start heading; that would also weed out those candidates who do not have the capability to pass muster in the disciplines I named above.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 7, 2008 1:07 PM
Not only that, but how would he know how to grade the answers?
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | November 7, 2008 1:16 PM
kodiak wrote:
Reminds me of a quote:
"I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent." -- Arthur C. Clarke, from 1984: Spring
Posted by: davy | November 7, 2008 1:24 PM
Michael Heath wrote:
Michael, I side with you on this. Unfortunately the trend is in the opposite direction, toward more pre-professional (practitioner) degrees. Depressing thought, eh?At my school, we liberal arts and sciences types are fighting a rear-guard action against creeping practioner education, and bit by bit we're losing.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 7, 2008 1:42 PM
All above points taken. I just seems to me (I'm in a co-op program, so I do have some industry experience under my belt) that if an engineer doesn't base his or her decisions on data and evidence, at best s/he'll have a flawed design or faulty product, and at worst, s/he'll end up killing someone. The one point that's been pounded into our brains since freshman year is that professional engineers are legally liable for the flaws in anything they put their seal on. I think I'm just underestimating how good some people are at subconscious compartmentalization.
@ Michael Heath:
I agree completely. I'm a product of the Ontario public school system (I imagine American school systems are similar), and I was never really taught what science is all about (we were taught the scientific method in high school science classes, but in more of a "this is what your lab write-up should look like" sense. We also had one unit on rhetoric and logical fallacies in grade 11 English). And at the undergrad level, we're too busying cramming three years of calculus into two courses to worry about it. Everything I've learned about critical thinking and the philosophy of science I've had to teach myself.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 7, 2008 1:43 PM
Ok, let me get this straight, when the public schools teach things that the fundies say is in direct opposition to what they believe, they're getting what they want, but when an ID statement is read in class, per the request of the duly elected school board, then they aren't?
And, if you don't like what your taxaes are paying for, you have to keep paying, no matter how high the bodies pile up in Fallujah, how many guys get their gonads fried in Gitmo and how many pot smokers waste their lives away in prison?
And the only solution is to cast your vote, hope it doesn't get thrown in the trash because it was for the wrong party compared to the vote counter, and pray that the next batch bothers to even do anything differently than the first batch?
Is that really the best you can offer?
But hey, you don't care, 'cause you're getting what you want, others are paying for it and they can just "renounce their citizenship" if they don't like it. I guess that's how democracy works for the majority at the expense of the minority. "If you're not an us, you're a them. Sorry, no rights for you."
The rest of the responses will be people telling me what I think, how evil I am and how I should just shut up for not going along with the crowd.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 2:31 PM
So I cannot reconcile forcing fundie parents to pay for government schools and not letting them have their say in how those schools are run. If they are not allowed to get what they pay for, then they shouldn't be forced to pay.
I have to point out that there is a major flaw to this argument. There isn't a one to one relationship between paying for public schools and sending your children to public schools. We, as taxpayers, support the public school system whether we have children or not, whether our children attend public schools or private schools, we still pay the taxes. The equation is simple:
I am an American citizen who resides in a community = I pay taxes
Taxes fund public schools
The end. It isn't
I pay taxes --> school
There isn't a relationship between the two, you pay taxes because you reside in the school district. You happen to benefit from the taxes you pay (more directly than the general public) because you choose to send your kids to the public school.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 7, 2008 2:40 PM
But of course there are rights for me. My right of expression being one, facilitated thanks to the generosity of SEED, a private company.
I've voted (another right) in every election since 1980, when I hit 18. Every single tax I've voted against has passed. Every candidate I've voted for has lost. I even ran for office.
I'd really like to know what is wrong with paying for what I want, using what I pay for and otherwise being left alone? Why does it scare you-all so much to just let people do their own thing, without having to force your ideas on them?
Never mind. I already know how this is going to go. As noted above, I'll be called names or told that I'm impractical, and people will make unfounded assertions about "the way things are."
I have this idealism that someday, people will recognize that just because they want something from others, it isn't a "right" and that the societal norm will be to leave people alone so long as they are not directly harming others.
The good thing is that it is much easier to legally minimize one's individual tax burden (since those who write tax law are no more interested in paying taxes than the rest of us) than it is to get oneself out of prison for expressing the "wrong" ideas. A government that protects civil liberties, even while raising taxes, is easier to deal with than one that has nominally free markets but trashes the Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 2:55 PM
I'd really like to know what is wrong with paying for what I want, using what I pay for and otherwise being left alone?
The using what I pay for is what makes this so hard to calculate. Their are societal benefits that will come about whether you pay for them or not. In education, it's the creation of new ideas that enhance life for everyone.
It's not that I disagree with your ideal of leaving people alone unless they cause harm to others. But the idea that it is possible to separate out individual benefits in a society and charge equitably each individual for only what they use is impratical...unless you can offer a workable solution. The solution you presented seems to have flaws that many commenters have pointed out. I'm personally less concerned with demonizing your position than discussing the rationale used to get to that position. If you can understand the reasoning used to come to a conclusion, you are much more likely to be able to impart the kinds of societal changes you suggest.
Posted by: Odie | November 7, 2008 3:30 PM
Michael Enquist said:
But evidently it's appropriate for you to tell me how I'm going to think and act. What is this, the pot calling the mirror black? I haven't done this, nor do I intend to. So please stop projecting onto me.
I think you may be confused about the purpose of teaching evolution. Teaching evolution is not an attempt to counter fundamentalist beliefs. Its purpose is to presenting children with facts and teaching the prevailing scientific theory that explains them. That it happens to conflict with fundamentalist claims is irrelevant. It's not a schools job to suppress science to make life easier on churches.
As to reading a statement about ID mandated by the school board, the appropriateness would depend on what that statement said. But in most cases I've seen such statements are misleading at best and illegal at worst. ID is religious doctrine dressed in scientific language. The First Amendment protects people from having the government push religious beliefs on them. Note this same law protects the children of religious families from having schools push the ideas of other religions onto their kids as well.
That's exactly the point I'm making. Just because some people want to use the government to push their religious ideas doesn't mean they have a right to it. Religion is a personal choice with no place in the classroom. When the government does start pushing religious ideas then it's creating a scocietal norm that is hostile to religions that subscribe to different ideas.
(Am I being Poe trolled?)
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Michael E. You are proposing libertarian ideas and you can certainly expect some support for those ideas on this site. I would question whether soicety benefits from the propagation of ID or other psuedo science ideology in a science classroom. By all means study ID in a comparative religions, or philosophy class but keep ID out of the science classroom. Parents do not have the right to declare something as "science" because it supports their beliefs. The science community should control what is allowed into the science classroom. STudents are welcome to disregard anything they want to, as possibly the children of holocaust revisionists do when studying WWII in history, but they cannot rewrite accepted understandings about whatever they want.
M Duran
Posted by: mark duran | November 7, 2008 3:58 PM
And remember, it's just a tendency, which takes a stronger hold on some over others. The same thing occurs in "the sciences"; when that Nature letter about a study found a relationship between "normal" scientists' and "elite" scientists' inverse relationship in belief in a personal God, mathematicians seemed to show a statistical bump. I.e., if I recall correctly, at the elite level, their proportion of believers was higher than the generalized elite norm (or some such), even though overall, it was still lower than mathematicians in general, and much lower than the population in general.
Posted by: minusRusty | November 7, 2008 4:39 PM
Abby,
My comments about how I would likely be treated were directed to the rhetorical you, not to you personally. I really shouldn't be posting in forums, because it quickly changes from entertainment for me to an outlet for my o-c personality. Then I get depressed and consider myself a loser.
Abby and Mark,
My idea is not that fundie parents be allowed to have their curriculum used in schools they have to pay for, but that because they have to pay for them, they will naturally want to have influence and power. One of the revolutionary principles of the Colonies was this belief.
Since we will not ever offer creationism as a science, then the fundies are being forced to pay for something they will never get. The only way to stop them from wanting to take over the government school curriculum is to allow them to completely disassociate themselves from government school.
The claim is that universal education is a social good. If that were true, would we have had the fraud and the willing compliance with the fraud in the investment markets? Would so many have allowed themselves to be led into loans they knew they couldn't afford? Would so many have let their elected officials start a war that was so patently a lie? If people were truly educated by the government system, would so many believe that the purpose of schools is to train people for jobs (few of which exist in the same form by the time they graduate) rather than providing liberal (as in "freeing") arts and sciences, the decline of which James Hanley laments above?
The "evidence that demands a verdict," to borrow a phrase, is why, when we spend more per student than we ever have, are so few people able to cope with the 21st Century?
Government education is not delivering as promised. Few of us get what we pay for. If it were any other commodity, we'd be able to take our money to different vendors who would educate their customers to the features and benefits of their product. Do you not believe that if parents had to shop for education they'd be more discerning about what they were spending their money on?
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Michael E. Google: John Taylor Gatto "Against School" to see one perpective on this question. M Duran
Posted by: mark duran | November 7, 2008 4:52 PM
I'm going to put asside this discussion for a moment. I'm much more concerned about you. Your comments about OCD and Depression resonated with me and I'd like to help if I can. Please feel free to email me at DearAbbyNormal(at)hotmail(dot)com. You shouldn't have to feel like that.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Dear Micheal Enquist,
Human societies rise and fall on the bonds that hold them together. When these bonds break down the necessary cohesion for defense (say) is not there and invaders can quickly overwhelm it. Humans need to support each other not because it benefits a majority, but because it benefits all of the society.
The "I'm all right Jack" attitude is what got America into this mess (and dragged the rest of us in too BTW), I'd suggest it is only by sacrificing personal gain for societal gain that you can claw your way out of it.
Like a life-raft adrift at sea, if each person on the raft was allowed to row in any direction they wanted (or not), fights would break out and the raft would go nowhere. It needs each crew member to sacrifice a little personal liberty to actually get the raft toward safety.
Personally I would prefer that science be taught in science classes even if it offends the beliefs of some*, if it improves the thinking skills and fosters an interest in the sciences. One day these students might make a discovery that saves lives, reduces the emission of carbon dioxide, or allows us to better understand how humans work. It is science that improves the lives of humans (and other living things), not just in America, but everywhere. There is an old, old saying: "A rising tide floats all boats". -DJ
*These IS NO RIGHT to be not offended. Also as a teacher in a public school, that teacher is a representative of the government, and is not free to force his beliefs on a captive audience.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 10:08 PM
As an aside from Michael E's point - allowing all the fundies to leave the public schools, taking their money with them or not, would not solve the Freshwater problem. As part of the desire to proselytize, such fools would continue to infiltrate the public school system as teachers even if they keep their children out. Just like pedophiles gravitate to positions that give access to children (like the priesthood, child care, and Scout leaders), and petty tyrants gravitate to places they can exercise power over others (like the police force), people who want to guide children to their own personal delusions will gravitate to teaching. And the more children that get pulled out of public school and completely indoctrinated in faith-based reality, the more will be available in the next generation to further contaminate the public school system.
Posted by: BobApril | November 7, 2008 10:28 PM
@Michael:
They do shop for education. Every few years you have what some people call an "election"; each candidate in that "election" puts forward his/her ideas as to how the education system should run, and if elected tries to implement them. That, at least, is the idea. If it doesn't work that way, its because something is wrong with the electoral system, not inherent in the educational system.
For hundreds of years, education was the preserve of the rich and ambitious, because the poor and unambitious saw no benefit to education; it took a long time to realise quite how much benefit universal education would bring to society. Making education optional, and removing government funding for the public schools, would take us/you (as I am in the UK) a long way back towards the 18th century.
The problems with education for your child will not be solved by any pressure induced by forcing those parents that want to to go out and buy education.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 8, 2008 5:07 AM
Re: engineers and creationism.
This sub-topic almost triggered another long spiel from me on how, if engineers (like myself) watched what they were doing when they improved or developed a new design, they would notice the process looked a lot like evolution, rather than the magical poofing of things into existence by sheer will and magic. However, I've given that spiel so many times it is beginning to bore even me, so I'll just issue a general compliment to all the commenters on this topic (up until now).
On schools and taxes: I am reminded of an old story by Robert Heinlein, called Coventry or something like that, in which an optimized, utopian society sent all its dissenters to some large island, to fend for themselves and govern themselves (or not) as they saw fit. In time, the dissenters developed a more vigorous, competitive society which conquered the more passive society. The moral for me was, beware of unintended consequences.
I too have had fantasies in which my blue states secede from the red states, but probably in the long run that would make things worse instead of better. We need to find ways to unite people rather than splitting off into smaller and smaller sub-sets.
Posted by: JimV | November 8, 2008 9:39 AM
I am also an engineer, and I have to wonder at the creationist engineers who claim genetic and morphological similarities are due to a "common designer". I try to explain to them what they should already know- that "design re-use" ultimately has one purpose: to save resources. We human engineers have finite time, energy, money, materials, and skill, so there are very good economic reasons why we cannot start from scratch every time and re-design, re-build, and re-test everything every time. The "common designer" argument implies by its very nature that if such a designer exists, it would have to be a finite, fallible designer and not an omnipotent, omniscient one.
Posted by: DaveL | November 8, 2008 9:59 AM
Another engineer here, agreeing with several of my colleagues above: engineers who blather about human design as an argument to Intelligent Design/Creationism, not only are being bad at critical thinking and ignorant of biology; they also haven't thought very deeply about how their own field works.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 8, 2008 1:25 PM
DingoJack, re your life-raft analogy, there's always another way...
The most wiley and sly and Rovian driftee can always push everyone else overboard and paddle in whichever direction lies the island of financial safety for him/her (ride the wave of opportunity, to belabour the metaphor). Oooops, looks like that has already happened, if we view the US Economy as the poor unfortunate drowning shipmates and the Lone Survivor as unregulated business greedily waiting for the tide to go out so that their ship can come in.
Posted by: marnk | November 8, 2008 2:09 PM
So, let me get this straight: You are opposed to creationism in favor of the view that matter under the influence of random processes formed every complex form of life that we see? You believe that the human brain, the coagualtion system, hearing, seeing, etc. could be brought about by chance? You believe that the information stored in the DNA code was produced by happenstance? And since you don't believe in a supernatural cause, you want the religion of Naturalism to be taught in the classroom instead. An engineer who cannot see design in something as complex as human body, should give his degree back.
Posted by: Rudy | November 8, 2008 3:55 PM
I may be a lowly undergrad, but even I know the best designs are simple, not complex. The Intelligent Designer is an incompetent engineer.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 8, 2008 4:53 PM
JimV - go back and re-read Coventry again, won't you? The three separate "more vigorous, competitive" societies were a theocracy, a dictatorship masquerading as communism, and another masquerading as a democracy. All three spent more time warring with each other than trying to break out, and the one attempt to break out was foiled by two patriots from the utopia, one of whom was a convicted prisoner FROM the utopia who realized late that the "freedom" found inside Coventry was anything but.
The libertarian post-theocratic Utopia in Heinlein's timeline was only destroyed by the "threat" of the long-lived Howards in "Methuselah's Children," when irrationality caused the libertarian government to betray its own principles.
Posted by: BobApril | November 8, 2008 6:02 PM
I may be a lowly undergrad, but even I know the best designs are simple, not complex.
And as soon as someone points out that whatever you consider complex is simple you'll complain that its not complex enough.
The Intelligent Designer is an incompetent engineer.
I'm always amazed at the hubris of the folks. A hundred years ago they taught the thyroid was a useless gland. Same thing regarding tonsils. Up until recently the appendix has been taught as a vestigal structure, now evidence shows it has lymphatic functions. The human eye was claimed to be "wired backwards", now evidence suggests that it is essential for the photoreceptors to be in direct contact with the retinal pigment epithelium for its chemoprotective influence, while the choroid acts as a heat sink preventing preventing thermal damage. People who claim to care for "science" make these absolute declarations without stopping think, "Gee, just since I don't know why its organized that way might just mean I need to study it more."
Posted by: Rudy | November 8, 2008 7:06 PM
BobApril "As part of the desire to proselytize, such fools would continue to infiltrate the public school system as teachers even if they keep their children out."
Appropriate links escape me at the moment, but don't forget the school board members that either homeschool or are for abolishing public schooling, which is a little like hiring a bull to cashier at a china shop.
Rudy "You are opposed to creationism in favor of the view that matter under the influence of random processes formed every complex form of life that we see?"
Random mutation, non-random natural selection. That last part is critical. I suspect that both sides are using different definitions of random (naturalists' random = unpredictable in any sense higher than basic probability, supernaturalists' random = random random. But I could be mistaken. That happens, sometimes).
You believe that the human brain, the coagualtion system, hearing, seeing, etc. could be brought about by chance? You believe that the information stored in the DNA code was produced by happenstance?"
Again, you're forgetting selection. Random only works when the failures are filtered out. And, preemptively, it's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the fit enough".
"And since you don't believe in a supernatural cause,"
No. My belief or non-belief in the supernatural has no effect on the facts of evolution, much as my disbelief in the theory of gravity has yet to spare me the consequences of tripping. Abiogenesis is stickier, as it's less a theory and more a hypothesis. Still, I tend to default to an incomplete naturalistic explanation of something over any supernatural one for the simple reason that, while science is only close enough for now, pending more data, religion is never right and, as such, regularly has its turf infringed by naturalistic explanations (this is why Thor doesn't throw lightning bolts anymore).
"...you want the religion of Naturalism to be taught in the classroom instead."
No, we want the facts to be taught in the classroom.
"An engineer who cannot see design in something as complex as human body, should give his degree back."
An engineer who had as much time as the Creator (at least in the case of, oh I don't know, an omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient one) who took uncounted generations and a practically infinite number of failures (not to mention, the "red in tooth and claw" nature of His methodology) to design something as complex as the human body should give it's degree back.
Christians should probably be glad that God is hands off in evolution (with the exception, of course, of Theistic Evolutionists). Without an intelligent agent evolution is literally heartless. With one, the agent in charge is, at best, not understandable by Man and, at worst, knowingly cruel and (dare I say) willfully evil.
"The human eye was claimed to be "wired backwards", now evidence suggests that it is essential for the photoreceptors to be in direct contact with the retinal pigment epithelium for its chemoprotective influence, while the choroid acts as a heat sink preventing preventing thermal damage."
AIG and ICR have steered you wrong. Frontwards or backwards photorecptors, that argument doesn't work, as either way there are still creatures that will have it "wrong" (vertebrates have it one way, while invertebrates have it the other), so in any event, the intelligent designer flipped the negatives somewhere.
In short, ToE's blind search for "fit enough" fits the evidence better, unless you're positing Incompetent Design or perhaps Competing Designers.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 8, 2008 8:52 PM
and...
Rudy "I'm always amazed at the hubris of the folks."
Which is worse, believing one thing based on the evidence until more evidence obsoletes the conclusion, necessitating a new belief (and filling in the gaps with "At this point it looks like it will be this." or "I don't know, but I'll look into it"), or believing one thing despite the evidence and continuing to believe the same thing when new evidence continues to contradict that belief (coupled with "Do you see that gap? That's the Designer!" or, just a few centuries ago "Heretic!")?
Scientific theory is tentatively true, and the theories change or are abandoned as we view the universe with greater granularity (the incomplete model of the universe changes as the data of the universe is seen more clearly). Religion (and from that Creationism, Creation Science and ID) professes to have Truth (capital T) that it patently does not have.
Believe what you want, but keep it out of science class.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 8, 2008 9:05 PM
It is a vestigial structure. Vestigial does not mean "completely useless". However, if you're looking for a completely useless organ, try the extensor coccygis.
Hint: other animals, such as the squid, have their eyes wired "the right way around", so you can immediately forget any effort to show it could not have been any other way. We already know it can be done "the right way around".
Besides, why would the choroid need to be between the photoreceptors and incoming light to function as a heat sink?
Posted by: DaveL | November 8, 2008 9:19 PM
Sorry, those of us who took Genetic Algorithms know that's a crock of bullshit.
Posted by: DaveL | November 8, 2008 9:23 PM
DaveL "Sorry, those of us who took Genetic Algorithms know that's a crock of bullshit."
I saw your a cappella group, the Genetic Algorhythms live once. You were almost as awful as that pun.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 8, 2008 10:01 PM
Why should tax payers money be used to spread the religion of evolution? I pay for my kids to learn my religion and my taxes pay for your kids to learn your religion. doesn't sound fair. Lets call it a tie and you send your kids to a private evolution school so I won't have to pay for you to indoctrinate kids with your religious beliefs.
Also, you ever notice how infantile the liberal evolutionists become, always resorting to name calling? Read the posts above and take notice to all the name calling of anyone that believes differently, is that tolerant? Is the liberal love for freedom of speech and expression limited to your ideas only? You should stop being so judgmental and let me live my life by my choices and stop forcing your ideology onto my kids.
Email me any time with your thoughts and questions, coville at gmail dot com.
Posted by: Mike | November 24, 2008 8:21 AM
Mike, care to offer one item of evidence supporting your claim that evolution is a religion? I suppose you think that teaching them about gravity is indoctrinating them with the religion of physics?
Do you own a car? If so, why are you perfectly okay with using the benefits of an understanding of evolution (news flash: we use the principles of evolution to prospect (successfully) for oil...), but oppose having that understanding taught to your children? That makes zero sense and smells of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Josh | November 24, 2008 8:44 AM
Mike,
When it comes to evolution, almost any scientist would agree with the statement "We know a lot more about evolution today than Charles Darwin ever did", yet you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who would agree with "We know a lot more about theology today than Jesus ever did" or a Muslim who would say "We know a lot more about Islam today than Mohammed ever did." Why do you think that is?
There are millions of Christians who would agree with the statement "The theory of evolution is essentially correct." The same goes for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who agrees "The tenets of Hinduism are essentially correct." Why do you suppose that is?
I'll spare you the suspense: it's because evolution is not a religion.
Freedom of speech means you will not be silenced, not that you will not be criticized, or even mocked. Criticism is part of Free Speech, too. Neither does Freedom Of Speech imply a right to a chunk of public school classroom time to have your views propagated. Creationism and its cheap new suit, Intelligent Design, are excluded from science curricula for exactly the same reason the Evil Spirits, Humours, and Miasma theories of disease are not taught. They are discredited holdovers from a prescientific time, which have since been replaced by rigorously verified scientific theories.
Posted by: DaveL | November 24, 2008 9:07 AM