Ohio court spars on science teacher's creationist lessons

John Freshwater / The Columbus Dispatch/ Craig Holman

COLUMBUS, Ohio State Supreme Court justices sparred with lawyers on Wednesday in a heated hour of arguments over the extent to which a now-fired public school science teacher had the right to push his religious beliefs in class.

A lawyer for the school board that dismissed John Freshwater in 2011 said he waved a Bible at his students, handed out religious pamphlets and espoused creationism in his evolution lessons.

Freshwater violated the constitutional separation between church and state and was rightfully fired, said David Smith, an attorney for the Mount Vernon School Board.

• Creationist teacher accused of burning crosses into students' arms

Smith said Freshwater can't "teach evolution from a Christian perspective" without violating constitutional protections against government establishment of religion.

"There is no academic freedom of the teacher to do that," Smith argued. "This is not a case about industrial hemp. It's not a case about the Iraqi war. Political sociological viewpoint is something completely different."

Freshwater's attorney, Rita Dunaway, said accounts of Freshwater's class conduct were exaggerated and he was exercising his academic freedom to explore controversial ideas.

• Science materials in Texas get prelim. approval

She said the board's decision to dismiss Freshwater showed hostility toward religion.

"The board's position basically boils down to the proposition that simply offering students evidence of the gaps or flaws in evolutionary theory is equal to religious indoctrination," she said.

Dunaway said Freshwater had a laudable teaching record and his students scored well on standardized science tests.

Freshwater was dismissed after investigators reported he preached Christian beliefs in class when discussing topics such as evolution and homosexuality and was insubordinate in failing to remove the Bible from his classroom.

Justices appeared perplexed, at times irritated, about what lawyers believed was the legal issue before them.

Justice Paul Pfeifer was incredulous when Smith argued that Freshwater's evolution class wouldn't have been covered under the school district's controversial-issues policy.

"So there's nothing controversial about evolution," he said. "It is a theory, isn't it?"

Freshwater also had been accused of using a science tool to burn students' arms with the image of a cross, but that allegation was resolved and was not a factor in his firing.

Justices nevertheless pursued the issue on Wednesday, asking what role it played in Freshwater being investigated. Smith speculated that attention surrounding that incident was what prompted the school board's investigation into Freshwater's 21-year career.

The board, in its review, concluded Freshwater had used a high-frequency generator, which other teachers have used to demonstrate electrical current, to burn a cross onto a student's arm. The cross lasted a few weeks.

The student's family settled a federal lawsuit against the district in an effort to move on.

In Freshwater's dismissal case, he is getting legal backing from the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group. Science education and humanist and secular groups have joined the side of the school board.

The school board argues that as far back as 1994 a middle school principal told Freshwater to stop distributing an "Answers in Genesis" pamphlet, which contained information about a creationist organization's seminar, according to a filing by board attorneys asking the court to uphold Freshwater's firing.

Freshwater also used a handout titled "Survival of the Fakest" to teach his students to doubt science, the board's attorneys said.

Two lower courts previously upheld Freshwater's dismissal.

At the back of the courtroom Wednesday, 17-year-old Esther Sorg and 18 other students from Wilmington Christian Academy, about an hour southwest of Columbus, listened in as part of a school field trip.

Sorg said her science classes include evolution and it seems public school classes could include the creationist perspective without harm.

"My eighth-grade science class was taught from a Christian perspective, but we discussed evolution as well," she said. "I thought that was good because I wanted to know what the current theories were."

[wfraser111]

Creationism is not science according to the US Suprme Court (1963 and 1987) and Fedral Courts (2005, Kitzmiller vs Dover). Intelligent design creationism is not science according to Federal Courts (2005, Kitzmiller vs Dover).
So, creationism has MAJOR legal rulings against it by the highest courts in the land which have ruled that from a legal perspective, creationism and ID creationism are religion, not science. Thats the first reason we don't teach creationism in scince class.
Second, most mainstream Christian denominations national councils have released statements supporting evolution and scince and specifically denouncing creationism and ID creationism as non sciientific and non representative of their churches theology. So, creationism has MAJOR denominational problems. The Vatican says creationism is neither science or religion.
Third, there are ZERO accreditted university scuience departments in America that teach creationism and ID creationism as scientific. IDs "heros" Dumbski and Behe are disgraced in the science community and regarded as quacks. There are ZERO creationism articles or research papers in the Library of Congresses 15 million scince articles catalog. Creationism articles get filed under the religion section.
The great sientists of the past and present have ZRO magical or mystical components in their creited scientific work and discovries. Magic is not science.
However, for those who must still disagree in the face of these clearly defined overwhelmingly simple observations then I have a suggestion. Why don't you write your creationism ideas down, submit them to a peer reviewed science jurnal for publication, and collect your Nobel Prize.
For, if you can disprove evolution, the most heavily documented theory in the life and biologic sciences, then by defintio9n you will have overturned most of the basic laws and theories in the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, stratigraphy, radiometric age dating and physics and astronomy. You would be famous at a level previously unknown in the history of scince.!!
So, lets get those creationism research articles docvumenting your claims and attacks on the scientific method written and turned in.
Or, try getting an education and put down the fundagelical tract thats full of attacks on scince. my faith isn't threateend by study of the natural world and the earth. Yours apparently is. Why is that? What does that say about your faith, reasoning ability and intellect and honesty
with yourself and others.
Believe whatever you want. But, when you attack the foundations of The Enlightenement logic and reason and the scientific method, be prepared to be identified as a fraud and a liar. becuase you will be.

[markvanderwal]

It is surprising that evolution is taught at all as it is so vile and non loving is it not hateful by defination should we be teaching hate dog eat dog world extionion of life and ideas like struggle for survival these are hateful ideas and feed into ideas that kill

[Riverman38now]

To state the U.S. Constitution has any LAW or LEGAL issue in it which states the Seperation of Church and State is absolutely nonsense. It only states that the Government of the U.S. cannot infringe upon the right of a persons religious beliefs by endorsing or promoting or trying to impede in any way a persons "sectarian" views. In other words, it can't favor Baptists, Roman Catholics or Islam or Jews over and against one another and/or show favoritism to just one group at all nor stand against one group at all in terms of their religious events! The only exception would be if the religous movement is seeking to over throw the Government or bring harm to people physically. The reason for the amendment was due to how the people had lived under the Church of England and it being a State Church. They wanted freedom from religious oppression and a State favoring a certain denomination of Christiaity or any other type. But never was it to mean GOD was left out of STATE at all. State Government was and did seek to honor God and morality and prayer. You can check it all out in our historical documents. The Government even entered into printing Bibles and distributing them around the nation. They also had the 10 Commandmens printed on Official Government Buildings etc.! So NO Church and State were seperate but NOT in the manner folksthink of it today. Some wish God and His name and prayer and recognition of God was eliminated so they cry "seperation of Church and State"! Of course they change their view when something goeson and creates their needs which would negate that statement, such as, allowing Muslims to be supported with our Tax money and they are in control of STATES and under Sharia law. No US Government has a right to give money or assets (weapons) to ny Church religious group and not show equal activities to all Churches, however, NONE are to receive anything like that from our Government. We can't give weapons and money to the Vatican which is a Church State nor should we give money and weapons to SAudi Arabia which is a Church State! Breaking the Ruleof Law seems to be fine when certain want things their way and it runs counter to the constitutional law.

[PaulBurnett9]

The story is seriously wrong in one aspect: While the Rutherford Institute's external propaganda claims it is a "civil liberties group," its founder, John Whitehead, is on record as being a fundagelical Christian fanatic: "The [Supreme] Court, by seeking to equate Christianity with other religions, merely assaults the one faith. The Court in essence is assailing the true God by democratizing the Christian religion."

Whitehead subscribes to a peculiar subset of right-wing religious fundamentalism called Christian Reconstructionism; Whitehead is a follower of its prophet, Rousas Rushdoony, who influenced and wrote the foreward to Whitehead's 1977 book, "The Separation Illusion", which dismisses democracy as "mob rule" and explains that religion was never intended to be separated from government. The Christian Reconstructionist movement's aim is to turn the United States into a theocracy (with them in charge, of course); the Rutherford Institute's mission is to aid and abet that end, and Freshwater is a loyal soldier in their attempt to take over America.

[daver18]

You are dreaming. This has nothing to do with some group you are afraid of trying to overthrow the government. Get a life! This whole idea of separation of church and State is not even in the Constitution. All it says is that the government will not promote a specific religion. Regardless, the idea that some attorney can't have their personal beliefs violates their rights. If the man wants to have an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or whatever as his attorney that's his business. The attorney's beliefs are not on trial here... except in your world.

As for your comment about democracy being claimed to be mob rule, the fact is that if you truly study democracy it can become that because it's simple a majority rule, which means that 51% of the people can decide something is right and that becomes law. That is why America is not a democracy. The founders understood the problems with a democracy and instead created a democratic republic, which is what America is. That simply means that there is a set standard for the law that it must meet. It is our Constitution. That is what makes America unique.

[WVStarkTruth]

Democracy IS mod rule. That is exactly why the founders created a republic rather than a true democracy. As far as anyone wishing to turn our government into a "theocracy", nothing could be further from the truth. All any Christian wants to see is a return to the principles on which our country was founded:

The rule of law. A moral standard that is not bent and twisted to suit the particular "trend" of the day. True freedom of religion where the government and its henchment (IRS) do not have the right to control what is said from the pulpit and do not use that hammer to silence political enemies like L. Johnson did in the 50s with the passage of that IRS regulation preventing pastors from preaching politics from their churches.

As far as the argument that Christians want to force everyone to "think like they do", again, nothing could be further from the truth. Repentance and acceptance of Christ as one's personal savior is not something than can be coerced. In order to mean anything, it MUST be VOLUNTARY. This, in itself, makes it impossible to force someone to become a Christian and child of God.

However, the idea of absolute right and wrong scares humanists and atheists because it pre-supposes that they are not the ultimate arbiters of those things (right and wrong) and therefore if absolute right and wrong exist, they are constrained from doing what ever they happen to want to do at any given moment. Therefore, anyone (particularly Christians who believe that there is a higher authority than humans that determines what is right and wrong) who challenges the supremacy of humans in making those determinations is an enemy that must be defeated if they are to retain their power to do what they please. Sad commentary on human nature. Christians are the least of the threats facing our country. Narcissistic humanists are the real threat that will bring our country down from a lack of moral backbone. Just watch, it is coming.

[lenwbrown]

While we are at this silliness, how about we include all religions and beliefs?

Reincarnation, Karma, Buddhism, Hunduism, Witchcraft, Satanism, and we mustn't forget to each all about Muhammad (Allah Akbar!) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Ramen!).

Did I forget anyone?

Ok, so that's settled. Oh, sorry - there's not enough time to teach kids about math, chemistry, geography, and biology.

Maybe they can get some of that in college. BUT AT LEAST THEY KNOW ABOUT GOD! That should be all they need to get a good job, right?

See how stupid that is? Yup. Me too.

Keep science in school and religion in church. Problem solved.

[rightontarget]

I think that BOTH Evolution AND Creationism should be offered for educational purposes (and neigther one be required subject matter, only offered as an elective class) and BOTH should be specifically stated as UNPROVEN THEORY. I also think that it should be a REQUIREMENT for the teachers of EITHER class to NOT ALLOW their personal views, beliefs or opinions to enter the discussions or influence their class in any way. Both should be referred to as a THEORY only and the students told they can choose to believe what they wish BUT that this class is ONLY for the purposes of explaining the theory in question, NOT to be used as a tool to "recruit" people's beliefs to EITHER side. VIEW AND TAKE THESE CLASSES OBJECTIVELY and a means to acquire knowledge on the subject, NOT to promote any religious or anti-religious agenda!

[skeezix06]

Evolution is science. Creationism is theology. If it's called a science classroom then evolution should be taught. If it's called a theology classroom then go ahead and preach but you better be prepared to give equal time and have a lesson plan that is positive, not negative, for other religions as well.

[lisaagnooty]

evolution is not science. It is atheism wrapped up in scientific terminology! It has NO basis in scientific fact! It's not a theory, and frankly, it's not even a good scientific postulation.

Thank God my students are taught evolution fully, the postulations, and all of the scientific problems with those postulations. After all, i'm trying to educate students, not indoctrinate them.

My students get to examine the scientific evidences their public school counterparts would never hear, because, after all, evolution in the public square is taught uncritically. It's an atheist's dream come true. The biggest problem with it? There is no scientific truth to it!

[sy2502]

As an atheist, I sometimes hear comments like "it's not like religion is hurting anybody. To each their own". Yes, if religious people did in fact keep their religion to themselves, I would be as happy as I could be. But many don't. People like this teacher just can't keep it to themselves. They consider it their moral duty to shove it down the throat of as many people as possible.

[addict42]

Creationism is on the same footing as teaching Gulliver's Travels as fact and that the Lilliputions existed or that Grimm's fairy tales really happened. These religious zealouts have no place in public school teachings especially in backwater hicktowns.

[WVStarkTruth]

That must be where you were "educated". Your spelling and punctuation reflect the ignorance displayed by your statements. The "addict" issue is apparent as well. Angry people strike out at people who have done nothing to harm them.

[3march]

Religious believers have tried to confuse the public by using a word that means one thing in ordinary street language and quite another in scientific discussion: theory. In ordinary conversation a theory is the same as a hypothesis or " your best guess." In science, a theory is a statement of fact which answers every measurable question about a particular issue. The way that germs cause disease is, in science, a theory (germ theory!). The way that airplanes are held aloft is a theory (flight theory). Electricity is transmitted according to a theory- the entire electrical grid- dams, power plants, transmission cables- all constructed on the basis of a theory.
We must not allow the ignorance of a few to prevent the flow of knowledge and information to successive generations. It could have disastrous consequences for our nation. But that's just a theory.

[margroks]

No, Creationism is a religious notion which has no place being taught in public schools. No one has the right to push their religious ideas on children in public schools where my tax dollars provide support. It is not a scientific fact and has no place there. Keep your faith to yourself and leave the rest of us to our own beliefs.