Mt. Vernon OH and a teacher named Freshwater

For the past couple of months I have been trying to post a blog entry about Mr. Freshwater and the teaching of Biology in Mount Vernon HS, but every time I started writing about I got so damn mad!

For those of you not familiar with the story, apparently Mount Vernon, OH, has been letting John Freshwater teach Creationism for the past 11 years, at least. They have been unresponsive to complaints, including the annoying little fact that his students had to be re-taught scientific principles in later classes. That by itself is annoying, to me at least.

There were some articles a few months back when the school board told him to take the Bible out of his classroom, something he apparently refused to do. School Boards have the right to discipline teachers, but they also need the intestinal fortitude, which this school board lacked. That was annoying as well.

But then the school district got sued by the parents of a student who had a cross BURNED into his arm in the shape of a cross by this so called science teacher. Now I started getting very hot under the collar. It required a student to be physically abused before the school board found some . . . intestinal fortitude.

They finally fired the jerk and of course he is appealing claiming that they had no right to fire him. That takes the cake!

You know in the Dover trial I felt sorry for the school district as a whole for a number of reasons, but I really wished they hadn't have had to pay out 1 million dollars after already voting out the idiots who decided to take their roller coaster to ruin.

But in Mount Vernon I am not feeling so charitable. The School Board is as culpable as the teacher because over at least 11 years, they failed to take any positive action. I hope they wind up using their entire budget for this matter, in spite of the fact the kids are the one who will wind up paying the price.

There is no possible excuse for their behavior! At least the teacher can claim insanity!

Here is a link to the results of the investigation. In my opinion Mr. Freshwater should be in jail! Yes, the burns weren't serious, but the fact he inflicted them should be grounds. His inability to teach the required curriculum should have had him fired years ago. I do feel sorry for his students, and for the other teachers who had to work harder to make up for his ineptitude. In my opinion he is the type of person who should not be a teacher if he cannot teach without bring his personal religous views into the classroom. What makes it worse for me is that he apparently LIED to investigators, which tells me he knew exactly what he was doing.

Another wonderful example of lying for Jesus!

"The Devil in Dover" by Lauri Lebo

For those of you who like a quick and dirty review -- Excellent Book!

For those who like a little more, I'll get the praise out and then head more into the meat. I enjoyed Ms. Lebo's first-hand account of the what happened in Dover. Not only is it well written, but it offered perspectives that you cannot get from reading trial transcripts or even reading the local papers before, during, and after the trial. The only way I think you could get any better picture is if you were a Dover resident and were in the middle of the action yourself. I recommend anyone interested in the Trial read this book. You will get a much more personal view of all that happened and a deeper appreciation for the personalities involved.

As you might be able to tell, I did enjoy this book. At times heart-rendering and at other times infuriating. Once the trial started I had trouble putting it down. I finished it at about 4AM, which might give you a clue how good it is!

It's not a very long book, only about 250 pages, but what she says doesn't require more. She dives briefly into the people involved, some personality and some education and background. She could have written so much more, but it wasn't really needed. She managed to give you a feeling for the personalities involved that went beyond the normal brief blurb in a newspaper. She get you insight into the workings of the Thomas More Law Center and the Discovery Institute, in addition to the obvious subject, the Dover Area School Board.

She also added a very human element, something you don't get in newspapers, how she herself felt and how the trial impacted her personally. It helped bring the story together on a level that nothing had for me previously. I mean there have been very good, factual books on the case, but this book made it personal.

She laid bare not only the actions of the school board members, but their motivations. She showed us some of the weaknesses in journalistic coverage and also its strengths. When the two journalists were accused of lying! That part of the book had me riveted! They handled it with such professionalism, that she made me proud to know such people exist in a trade that doesn't get much positive press itself. Her own efforts against an editor trying to get her to 'balance' her coverage more was spot on! As was her recollection of the trial, it was fascinating without being as long winded as the trial itself certain was -- I did read the transcripts, all the transcripts! She also took us past the trial and saw some of the aftermath, for herself personally and also the others involved.

It's that understanding of character that has me place this book well above the other two I have read on the trial. I enjoyed the legal machinations in "40 days and 40 nights"by Matthew Chapman and the more extensive coverage of how Dover fits into the larger Evolution/Creationism debate in Edward Humes "Monkey Girl", but the personal nature of the characterizations Ms. Lebo describes really brought the trial home for me.

I recommend this book to anyone! Here is the Amazon link to it, as a hint :-)

Arte-y-pico Award

GumbyTheCat awarded this blog an "Arte Y Pico" award! Gumby's write up is here. I have to thank Gumby and tell you a little about his blog. I enjoy it on several levels. First of all Gumby isn't overly technical in the level of scientific detail of biology, which as a non-biologist I appreciate! Plus Gumby is another example of someone who can be a Christian and still understand and support science. This is important to me! All too frequently anyone who supports science, evolution in particular gets accused of being atheists, or worse. I know I've mentioned it on this blog (here). You would think being called the Anti-Christ would put me off, but I just see it as another chance to educate -- plus have a little fun tugging on chains. I think Gumby sees it much the same way. He does a great job at pulling chains as well!

Again I would like to thank Gumby and as tempting as it would be to re-award this back, I will list my other 5 favorite blogs and spread the wealth, so to speak.

Here are the rules from the originating website, http://arteypico.blogspot.com/:

• You have to pick 5 blogs that you consider deserve this award, creativity, design, interesting material, and also contributes to the blogger community, no matter of language.
• Each award has to have the name of the author and also a link to his or her blog to be visited by everyone.
• Each award-winning, has to show the award and put the name and link to the blog that has given her or him the award itself.
• Award-winning and the one who has given the prize have to show the link of “Arte y pico” blog, so everyone will know the origin of this award.
• To show these rules.

So here are Five Blogs of note for me personally are:

1. Pharnygula, from PZ Myers. If you are involved in the "Evolution vs. All Comers"debate you are probably already familiar with this blog. Dr. Myers continues to be one of the champions of science and a consistent public critic of the Intelligent Design Movement.
2. Panda's Thumb has won many awards, and it's another site anyone familiar with the Evolution debate should already know. It isn't the work of one person, but about 35, including PZ Myers. Here is where I go for much of the meat and potatoes of what's going on around the rest of the world in the debates.
   
3. Total Drek is another one I enjoy for it's irreverence as much as it's content. Drek is a post-grad student with an affinity for mental meandering. I do believe that if I ran into Drek in a dark alley, I would end up laughing hysterically.
   
4. A lesser known blog that really focuses on South Carolina happenings is Not Very Bright. Contrary to its name, I find it's evolution/Intelligent Design coverage brilliant. This is the blog that told me, and many others, about the disgrace being perpetrated by the State School Board President Elect in selected new biology textbooks. Not-Very-Bright seems to have taken part of the summer off, well I will miss it. Hopefully it'll be back in the fall and raring to go on presidential politicos and keeping an eye on Mrs. Kristin Maguire (the aforementioned head of the SC School Board)
5. Anyone that posts a photographic walking tour of the new Creation Museum is worth an award. Whatever is the brainstorm of John Scalzi and it has been "Taunting the Tauntable since 1998"
   

There you have it, my selections for the Arte-Y-Pico awards!

New Book, The Devil in Dover

Terrific Article about a book on the Dover trial and an interview with the author! This should be required reading for State Legislators who think the Discovery Institute is their friend.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87876/?ses=05f6ce90127b35a567cef0bd19f816de

I haven't read the book yet, but I'll be at my local Barnes and Noble this weekend, so if it's there, I will pick it up. The article itself was interesting reading. If any of you saw the PBS Nova special on the Dover Trial, link here, the author , Lauri Lebo, was discussed mainly in her relationship to her father which deteriorated because they ended up on opposing sides during the trial.

One point in the article I thought was interesting was the role of journalism. In an effort to remain impartial, are they actually helping one side of an argument or another? I was surprised by how . . . impartial . . . the two reporters who were slandered by the defense in the Dover case remained even during their own testimony.

Well in any event I am looking forward to reading the book. I'll throw in another report once I have.

Topix thoughts

I have been spending a lot of time on Topix, it's a clearing hose for links to articles and forums to discuss them. Of course one of the busiest debates on Topix involved Evolution. One of the funny things I have discovered is how quickly every forum topic 'devolves' down into those who support science on one side and those who do not on the other -- the funny part is it is regardless of the forum topic.

For example a Topix started by an article called "Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You" concerned an article about some of the stranger tactics being used in some State Legislatures and the teaching of Evolution in the classroom. In less than 3 responses the whole discussion because a two sided debate about the merits of evolution, the demerits of Creationism, and a sprinkling of ID. The whole topic of what was going on in state legislatures faded well into the background. You could take the 14 or so blog posts I called "Arguments", about many of the more common arguments against Evolution and you will pretty well see each one rear it's head. This forum is over 10,000 posts.

But then you go over to another topic " Should Evolution be taught in High School?", which is well over 18,000 posts now and you will see the same thing. This one really drove the message home to me because the original article isn't about the merits of evolution, but whether of not evolution is too advanced a topic for high-schoolers to learn and high school teachers to teach correctly. But nearly immediately you see the immediate dichotomy of most posters. Some come in to learn something, but most of the Creationists are so entrenched in their thinking that nothing said is going to make a difference.

Now before you ask, are some of the evolution supporters also entrenched, and the answer is Yes. But the difference, as I see it, the evolution supporters are much more willing to discuss, link to supporting material, and freely admit to many of the truths that science isn't perfect, science doesn't know everything, there is still work to be done. While the entrenched Creationists simple dig their hole deeper and become much more dogmatic as each and every one of their arguments gets shot full of holes. After a while many of them become seriously abusive. Yes, again some evolution supporters also respond in an abusive manner, but once again more as a defense after being called all kinds of interesting pejoratives.

OK, so where do I see this Blog post going and to be honest I'm not sure. I did want to bring people attention to Topix and to wading carefully into the debate there. Be warned that if you support Evolution, it doesn't matter how much support you bring to the table, you will get the standard set of Creationist websites brought up, the usual and very tired arguments will be put on the table, and eventually you will be the object of some narrow-minded idiot's abusive. But you will also learn a lot of new things, aside from new curse words. There are some brilliant posters like Fossil Bob, a geologist, Katydid, who works in evolutionary biology in some area, and Tomk who I suspect is a physicist. That doesn't begin to identify some of the brilliant posters on Topix, but jump on in and join the party. If you are dealing with Creationist/ID supporters in your world, I bet you will also learn a few arguments to thump them around and tug on their chains. It's part of the fun!

Arguments XIII - The 747 or a Shakespearean monkey

A very common argument against evolution tries to compare evolution to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a 747. A similar comparison is to take evolution and say that evolution is like putting a monkey in front of a typewriter and waiting for him to produce a Shakespearean play.

In my humble opinion these are extremely false comparisons and demonstrate either a completely poor understanding of evolutionary theory or are a deliberate effort to mislead and misdirect folks. Either one to me is foolish.

Let me explain. First of all the nearest possible connection between the activity of a tornado and evolution would be in the concept of random mutation. Because I believe that is the heart of their argument. They think people will agree that the odds of such an activity happening are so astronomical that it would make people think evolution's odds are astronomical too. A seriously false analogy!

So the tornado comes along and picks up a piece of material that could conceivable be used on a 747. Where does it put it? How does it select that particular item? What is running the show, so to speak? In evolution let's do something sorta similar, a mutation happens. An individual member of a population forms a mutation through one of the many mechanism that cause mutations to happen. Now the big question is how does that mutation become part of evolution? One mechanism is Natural Selection. If the mutation increases an individual's opportunities for survival and reproduction, it will most likely be passed on the future generations. The mutation may open up a new food source, or been viewed as more attractive by potential mates, or make the individual more robust. Whatever the mutation, natural selection would see that the trait got passed on. In time when their exists a population that exhibits the trait, you can see evolution in action.

Well what is performing this function for the 747 or the monkey sitting in front of the typewriter? Nothing! That is why the analogies are so false. Evolution is not an unguided act, like they wish you to think. Evolution is not nearly as random as a tornado through a trailer park, um sorry, junkyard. There are many other forces at work than just randomness.

Here is a better analogy using the same tornado. According to Evolutionary theory, life, as it reproduces, introduces change. Over long periods of time the changes become more profound. While I will admit that junk in a junkyard doesn't reproduce. But let's take the junkyard and run a tornado through it. Outside the junkyard the tornado deposits a bunch of junk. That pile of junk is very different than the pile of junk it started with, correct? Well another tornado comes through and takes that pile of junk and does its thing and another very different pile of junk is created, maybe one with new junk from the second twister. This to me is a slightly better analogy. Oh it's still missing tons of stuff to actually be an analogy for all of evolution. For example, where is the selection?  In the tornado example, what is the mechanism that selects?  There isn't one in a tornado, but there certainly is in evolution.  But this analogy could be used to compare with random mutation, one of the mechanisms of evolution.

I think you can see where this would apply to the monkey as well. In either case just remember that by itself a tornado or a typing monkey are not good analogies for the entirety of evolution, but maybe just a tiny piece.

Arguments XII - Lady Hope

Subtitled -- Did Darwin recant his evolutionary theories and become a born-again Christian on his deathbed? The short answer is No! Here is the longer answer.

Apparently a lady named Elizabeth Reid, aka Lady Hope, claimed that in 1882, shortly before Charles Darwin died, she visited him and he recanted his theories and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. She told this story -- for the apparent first time -- in 1915, at an evangelical conference in Massachusetts. Her story was then printed in American Baptist newspaper the Watchman Examiner on August 15, 1915. The original text is on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope

Now aside from the obvious question like why did this lady take almost 35 years to tell this story? There are even more obvious ones like who is Lady Hope, what was her connection to Charles Darwin, and did what she claims happen actually happen.

According to Darwin's family, including published statements by his wife, sons, and a granddaughter -- Lady Hope was not a visitor to Charles Darwin in his last days. Darwin's religious views were well documented and definitely didn't agree with her statements. And some of the details, like him being almost bedridden months before he died, were inaccurate to say the least.

Now who are we going to believe? Lady Hope, who it turns out was not some family friend or bystander, but a member of the evangelical temperance movement with an ax to grind against Darwin's theories.

The story spread, as what we now call urban legends tend to, because it made such a great story. Several academic studies were done, not just by the secular agencies but by evangelical agencies as well. Guess what they found? That there wasn't any proof it happened! Even Answers-in-Genesis, that stalwart site who love anything that tried to shed doubt on evolutionary theory doesn't give any credence to the Lady Hope story.

So when some Creationist drags out this chestnut, grab a little ammunition and poke a few holes. I mean it's one thing when Talk.Origins denies it, they are a well known debunker of anti-evolutionary arguments, but when the evangelical community denies it, you should have an easy time.

Florida came through in the end

While I have posted that I disagreed with the small change in wording to the new Florida State Science Standards requiring Evolution be called the Theory of Evolution, when no other scientific theory is so identified, I have been watching two bills introduced to the Florida State Houses make their way through the legislative process. I've been watching with interest.

The two bills, according to their supporters, are bills to protect teachers who dissent from Evolution from being fired or disciplined. They were also supposed to be about academic freedom, something that I see as a lie! But more on that later. for now please join me in a round of applause because as of May 2, 2008 the two bills are dead. Read about it here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/FL/739_antievolution_bills_dead_in_fl_5_3_2008.asp

The bills sponsors had a little trouble convincing other state representatives that there were teachers being discriminated against because of their lack of support for evolution. I guess it's hard to pass a new law when there are no victims! Other sponsors just kept harping on academic freedom and failed to make their case. Florida done good. The only down side is that I would rather the bills come up for a vote and be voted down rather than just left to die on the vine -- because the stubbornness of those sponsors will mean the Florida Legislature will be dealing with this issue over and over again. My hopes is that the Florida voters remember which school board members and legislators supported this thinly veiled attack on science and passes judgment in the only way voters can, and boots them out of office.

As for the academic freedom argument, I've already posted other comments on it. But to me it is NOT academic freedom when you substitute religion for science, it is not academic freedom being supported when you create a law for one group of teachers on one tiny part of their curriculum, What this whole issue to me was pandering. The bills sponsors were looking to cash in on conservative points of view and earn points with some of their constituents. I hope if fails in the polling place!

Florida already has laws and regulations concerning academic freedom. Teachers today can introduce controversial subjects in their curriculum areas. But what teachers are not allowed to do is subvert the approved curriculum areas defined by the state. The bill supporters claimed the bills wouldn't allow religion in the classroom, but those provisions weren't actually written in the bill.

My final take on this, until it rears it's ugly head again, is that this is a tactic used to try and weaken evolution in education. Do conservative Christians really want to support academic freedom? If so why weren't teachers who want to teach numerology, astrology, and taro cards not also protected? Why is only the Christian viewpoint the one they support, what about teachers teaching the creationist myths from ever religion? Nowhere! Those who think Intelligent Design and Creationism should be taught because of 'academic freedom' are using a despicable tactic as they try and wedge their way into the classroom and once there cover themselves in sweet sounding words. Sure nearly a hundred years ago was John Scopes allowed academic freedom? No! Regardless of the fact evolution was in the text book used in the school. There was no talk of academic freedom to support what he taught, or I guess I should say tried to teach -- or was accused of teaching. So this use of the words 'academic freedom' is a tactic, nothing more, and one I disagree with completely!

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. -- Review

I finally saw it, at the invitation of a Creationist friend of mine and She was heartily disappointed in the movie. I am still writing up what I felt was wrong with it, but her words were surprising, so I put them here for anyone who is interested. Actually I put them first on Topix and decided to add them here.

First of all, she was disappointed because at no time did the movie define what was Intelligent Design and the supposed science behind it. She firmly believed that if they had, then no one could deny the movie a viable cry in the wilderness of fighting against the scientific community. So she was disappointed there.

Even she had serious issues with the connection between eugenics and evolution. In her words "That's the stupidest thing I have ever seen . . . I don't agree with evolution, but that's just plain wrong! . . . What were they thinking?"

The scene of Ben Stein running all over Seattle in his cheap suit and ugly sneakers was ridiculous. And portraying the Discover Institute as a hole in the wall office was just marketing to build up the appearance of being some sort of underdogs. Apparently my friend has been to the DI in Seattle and their facilities are remarkably modern, large, and plush!

She was also very disappointed in the scene of Stein lecturing what was supposed to be a group of students. She learned just after the movie -- not from me, but an article in a paper -- that the students were extras as opposed to real students -- she was pretty disgusted.

Her final words to me were an apology for putting me through that. I don't blame her, I blame Ben Stein. As you might guess I was looking to be pretty well bored, but I have to say I did laugh a lot, much to the displeasure of others in the audience. Anyone who swallows Ben Stein's 'mockumentary' really needs their heads examined.

I agreed with her on all points, plus a couple of my own: What the hell is "Big Science"? I think Ben Stein swiped the "Big" moniker from the "Big Business" of the 80's political debates and "Big Oil" of the 90's. There is no Big Science" and his approach at explaining it was ham-fisted and utterly hilarious. The Scientific Community would certainly have trouble pointing to themselves, or any subset of themselves as some super shadow organization keeping scientific ideas hidden from view.

The examples of the supposed people persecuted have all be addressed here and in others places. In my opinion Ben Stein lied! He didn't get the Sternberg, Gonzales, Crocker, or Marks stories straight and just presented them in the way he wished they had happened. My God, since when did "Academic Freedom" mean that you could do anything you like in the classroom and not be held accountable? The movie was certainly slanted in the extreme and anyone who says Sternberg, Gonzales, Marks, or Crocker are victims should get their facts together.

Even though the movie did its best to present Dawkins and Meyers is the worst possible way, I think they still came across more believable than the others -- but everything including the lighting and the way they were edited left much to be desired.

I have many more issues, but I am still writing them up. I have to look up a Darwin quote they used, I think they blew it big time, but I might need to see it again, I don't take shorthand and didn't get the whole quote -- as they said it. All in all, I think my friend, while she isn't moving toward any support for the theory of evolution, she is certainly heading away from Intelligent Design! She plans on informing her Church Group about the screening and asked for my finished notes of my comments when I get done. An afternoon well spent!

I'm back

Yes, I know I've been gone a while. Something things just work that way. But it's time to get back to blogging because things have been happening and I would like your thoughts and feedback to some of it.

Like what's now going on in Florida. Florida, where they almost did the completely right thing, has introduced a bill in the State Legislature supposedly to protect the academic freedom of anyone who teaches alternatives to evolution. How bogus is that!

OK, you might disagree, but look at it this way. Every education system already has procedures in place to deal with academic freedom. Teachers, especially ones with tenure, are free to bring in just about anything related to their subject area into the classroom. They already have that level of protection. So why do we need this bill?

My take on it is that some teachers want to bring things into the classroom that is outside their subject area. Now this begs the question, do teachers who introduce topics outside their subject area deserve a special level of protection? I say No! If the English teacher starts teaching biology, they deserve swift and rapid action . . . and if they continue, they should be fired -- tenure or no tenure.

Of course this wouldn't apply here because this bill is specific to teachers who want to teach alternatives to evolution. And what alternatives are there? You know it's funny because while the bill supporters claim this is not going to be used to introduce religion into the classroom, the only alternatives that exist to evolution are religious based ones. There are no scientific based challenges to the theory of evolution.

So on the one hand this bill will do nothing . . . because it specifically addresses Evolution and if religious alternatives aren't discussed, then the bill is totally a waste of time. On the other hand the bill really doesn't prevent someone from teaching Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. So if they did, the new law could be used to prevent the school from taking any action. That would suck!

Here is what I think Florida should do. I think this would remove all issues and make a law that might actually do something useful. Since there are varying degrees of Academic Freedom in the policies of the multitude of school boards. Change the wording of the law to address academic freedom across all subject areas. State that a teacher cannot be disciplined for bring into the classroom controversial subjects that pertain to the subject area being covered! This would keep teachers focused on their subject area, the area they were hired and are paid to teach. It would prevent someone from bring religion into any class other than one addressing sociology or theology. Religious alternatives to Evolution would not be protected because they would not be within the biology subject area. That's my take! Any teacher that introduces material from outside their subject area or is pushing a specific religious point of view, whether it's Creationism for Evolution, Young Earth Creationism for Geology, or Astrology for Astronomy, I say they do not deserve any protection and schools should take quick and decisive action against such teachers.

Luckily, I am not the only one who objects to this bill (http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=8167028&nav=menu577_2_1)