This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Science teacher dissed evolution

Science teacher dissed evolution - Comments

notsobad's Avatar Comment 1 by notsobad

This is why you need to educate your kids at home, teach them to question information and authority and discuss things that go on at school with them.
I would storm into the school the day after some idiot teacher tried this.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #186802

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 2 by FightingFalcon



The report confirmed that Freshwater burned crosses onto students' arms, using an electrostatic device, in December.


Holy shit (literally)!

So when does this asshole go to jail???

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:53:00 UTC | #186803

Knucklesdude's Avatar Comment 3 by Knucklesdude

Horrible. I agree with notsobad, I would not tolerate these actions for a second.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:53:00 UTC | #186804

sophia_mr's Avatar Comment 4 by sophia_mr

That dude is clearly nuts (then against so are most people) and something should have been done about that a long time ago.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:00 UTC | #186805

catskill's Avatar Comment 5 by catskill

What I learned from this article is that even if you are a total wacko with religious materials all over the classroom and you teach creationism openly you can go on for years without any interference. What about all the other teachers who do the same thing but without the Bibles and branding? They go on.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:59:00 UTC | #186807

lhunt3's Avatar Comment 6 by lhunt3

The creationists are just going to point to this incident (forgetting about the fact that the teacher actually burnt the kids) as another example of "big science" unfairly promoting atheism in the classroom.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:59:00 UTC | #186808

8teist's Avatar Comment 7 by 8teist

Obviously he`s not a science teacher, not even a religious scholar .Does not even have the balls to admit it . Most definitely a cross burnt into that childs arm not an x.
Jeez... I didn`t expect the spanish inquisition.....


...cue...

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:01:00 UTC | #186810

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 8 by Epinephrine

(literally)!


[Inigo]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo]

I think we've seen this clown (Freshwater) before, or perhaps it was via a blog or something. Hopefully he'll be sacked for his behaviour.

I didn`t expect the spanish inquisition.....


NOBODY expects the Spanish inquisition!

(yeah, I figured I had to...)

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:01:00 UTC | #186811

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 9 by Gregg Townsend

What does the cross burning say about the eighth-graders?! I don't know about the rest of you, but if any teacher would have approached me with an electrostatic device with the intent to burn anything into my skin, I would have kicked him in the nuts!

Sheesh. Stupid on two levels.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:00 UTC | #186815

Prankster's Avatar Comment 10 by Prankster

Hasn't something like this been posted already on here? Back in April this year weren't there reports of a teacher branding students?

If it's the same fundie idiot, why is still employed?

The mind boggles.....

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:10:00 UTC | #186817

SonOfSLJ's Avatar Comment 11 by SonOfSLJ

What's sad is that Daubenmire may be correct, and Freshwater may be reflecting the values of the community (with the exception of that whole branding-of-flesh thing...) since I can't think of another plausible reason why this clown wasn't fired a long time ago.

But whether or not Freshwater is reflecting provincial standards is irrelevant - his responsibility as a teacher is to reflect the curriculum of the school district, and if that curriculum conflicts with his values, then maybe...oh...he shouldn't have decided to become a teacher in the school district.

Not that Freshwater really wants to be a teacher anyway. I think he's harboring his true ambition now - a chance to be a martyr.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:16:00 UTC | #186822

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 12 by mordacious1

Yes, this story is a bit old. If I was an attorney I'd be drooling to get this case. Ka-ching. The school claims the crossing burning was wrong, but there was no problem with his teaching. They are just CTA-ing. I wouldn't necessarily home school, but interviewing your child's teachers and talking to other parents about them is a real good idea.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:00 UTC | #186826

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 13 by rod-the-farmer

I agree with SonOfSLJ


"With the exception of the cross-burning episode. … I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he said.

The teacher was hired to teach the curriculum of the State Board of Education, NOT what the parents values might be. This was a science class for cryin' out loud. If the parents object, they can take their kids to a different school, home-school them, or try to undo what the science teacher says, or try to get the curriculum changed. (See Dover, PA).

Geez Louise. Burning crosses into students arms. How many times have we ALL said "You just couldn't make this stuff up".

Let's watch THIS one unfold. Any lurkers out there from this community who can report back ?

EDIT

You cannot separate your value system from your teaching.

If your values are opposed to those of the state curriculum, then I suggest, nay insist you resign as a public school teacher, and seek employment elsewhere. In government service would this not be called treason ?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:26:00 UTC | #186831

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 14 by Epinephrine

Report of the investigation.

It goes beyond just burning a few arms,

In addition, there is evidence that Mr. Freshwater inappropriately said to his class that science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and therefore is a sinner.


Nutjob.


http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/06/19/Freshwater.pdf

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:00 UTC | #186834

decius's Avatar Comment 15 by decius

Why aren't they pressing criminal charges for assault and bodily harm?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:32:00 UTC | #186836

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 16 by Border Collie

If this guy actually burned flesh, I'd say his personal problems go way beyond teaching religion in a science classroom. Seems like he might need to be in an involuntary therapeutic environment for a few decades. The school administration and school board might check in for a few therapeutic sessions also.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:34:00 UTC | #186841

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 17 by rod-the-farmer

One the Columbus, Ohio newspaper web site I found this

http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/04/22/2006_complaint.pdf

a copy of the letter sent to the teacher in question, back in mid-2006, investigating his use of non-standard material in his classroom. He was cautioned to stick to the official curriculum.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:35:00 UTC | #186843

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 18 by glenister_m

In this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_re_us/teacher_bible;_ylt=AvqEmmIezG3j4ijfUcmQcNis0NUE

they add:

"A former superintendent, Jeff Maley, said he tried to find another position for Freshwater but couldn't because Freshwater was certified only in science, the report said.

Freshwater used a science tool known as a high-frequency generator to burn images of a cross on students' arms in December, the report said. Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on several students and described the images as an "X," not a cross. But pictures show the images depict a cross, the report said.

Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution."



The certification thing is a joke. Unless you are teaching upper level courses required for admission to college/university, certification in a particular subject is not mandatory. I am certified to teach science, but if I was willing and they needed someone, I could just as easily teach art, home economics, keyboarding, or gym to the lower grades and no one would mind.

What was he trying to demonstrate with his high-frequency generator? How you can use it to burn people?

I doubt he argued that the Bible was unreliable to argue against scientific facts.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:43:00 UTC | #186850

hoops mccann's Avatar Comment 19 by hoops mccann

"[Inigo]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo]"



Speaking of cues:
"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die"

(yeah, I figured I had to as well...)

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:46:00 UTC | #186855

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 20 by rod-the-farmer

Further links on the newspaper web site....You HAVE to read this. I defer to the Irate Atheist for a word to describe this nut.

http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/06/19/Freshwater.pdf

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:49:00 UTC | #186856

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 21 by TeraBrat

If this guy actually burned flesh, I'd say his personal problems go way beyond teaching religion in a science classroom. Seems like he might need to be in an involuntary therapeutic environment for a few decades. The school administration and school board might check in for a few therapeutic sessions also.


I agree.

It's funny that he caught on the least offensive thing tha the did. I could care less if a teacher wants to have a bible sitting on their desk. What they teach, say and how they behave towards the children is so much more important.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:51:00 UTC | #186859

Don_Quix's Avatar Comment 22 by Don_Quix

Prison time baby!

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:59:00 UTC | #186866

ThoughtsonCommonToad's Avatar Comment 23 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

The report confirmed that Freshwater burned crosses onto students' arms, using an electrostatic device, in December.

Freshwater told investigators the marks were X's, not crosses.


Oh that's ok then. For a minute there I thought he'd done something wrong.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:00:00 UTC | #186868

tahustvedt's Avatar Comment 24 by tahustvedt

I don't get it.

What the hell is the logic behind burning in crosses in the arms of the students?

And why is the explanation that he was burning in X's any better?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:01:00 UTC | #186872

davem's Avatar Comment 25 by davem

For 11 years, other teachers in the school district and people in the community complained about Freshwater preaching his Christian beliefs in class and slamming scientific theories, a school administrator told investigators.


Looks like Mr Freshwater has got to go. Shortly followed by his bosses, who seem equally incapable of doing their job. 11 years? Why did it take more than 11 minutes?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:00 UTC | #186876

mark8's Avatar Comment 26 by mark8

"These concerns had been going on for at least 11 years, and the school had not done anything,"

This is it for me, the school is just as culpable for his actions as the teacher is himself. Clearly washing their hands, while he proselytizes and tortures children!

Dismiss, and then charge the lot of them with the full letter of the law.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:09:00 UTC | #186878

ttheobald's Avatar Comment 27 by ttheobald

Aside from the whole issue of burning children, what I come back to is the imbecilic notion that "he's teaching parents' values."

#1 - he's not paid to teach values, he's paid to teach science. Science education is not subject to a democratic vote. Reality is reality, you don't get to "believe" about it.

#2 - back to the burning bit. Causing physical harm to the students such that it leaves scarring or marks, even temporarily, is a criminal offense. Parents who did this would potentially be arrested and might lose custody of their children over something like this - why is this fellow not in a jail cell dancing with the proverbial seven foot tall weight-lifter named "Chickles"?

T

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:27:00 UTC | #186902

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 28 by TeraBrat

#2 - back to the burning bit. Causing physical harm to the students such that it leaves scarring or marks, even temporarily, is a criminal offense. Parents who did this would potentially be arrested and might lose custody of their children over something like this - why is this fellow not in a jail cell dancing with the proverbial seven foot tall weight-lifter named "Chickles"?


Excellent question.

I wonder if the fact that he's a devout Christian has anything to do with it.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:51:00 UTC | #186917

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 29 by robotaholic

who the FUCK does he think he is

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:56:00 UTC | #186921

Mr. Davies's Avatar Comment 30 by Mr. Davies

Rod-the-farmer: Thanks so much for the .pdf scoop!
It goes to show that after 11 years, it comes to something like this.

I may never be able to compete with the Irate Atheist, but how about this...
"He's a hot buttered cross-tard"?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:16:00 UTC | #186933