Freshwater the story continues

Posted 11 July 2008 by PvM

After the attempts by Coach Daubenmire to defend Freshwater have failed miserably, most recently on Geraldo, an "official site" named " Bible on the Desk" has been created which claims to be the official site for Freshwater. Its most visible attribute is a Donate button and a FoxNews interview.

The interview asks some good questions and I find it fascinating how Freshwater and his lawyer dance around some of the issues. Discussing the various allegations, the interviewer mentions that Freshwater took his trusty bible to school, that he displayed 10 commandments and other religious verses and that he had been teaching creationism in class. FreshwaterL "I teach evolution. I am a science teacher, I taught in Idaho and taught evolution there." Q: Have you been teaching that [intelligent design] ? Freshwater: "Let me first teach you something. We have three categories evolution, intelligent design, over here we have creation. I teach evolution, I do not teach ID, I do not teach creationism". Three categories?.... Interesting and telling distinction. So did Freshwater teach Intelligent Design? Let's compare the statement on Fox News with the following news article:

Pastor Matolyak said the entire ordeal started five years ago when Freshwater raised a question to his students about intelligent design. Freshwater was covering the theory in his classroom, just as he was covering the theory of evolution, when he received complaints about the inclusion of intelligent design in his curriculum. Meetings ensued with the principal, superintendent, and eventually the school board, which shot down his argument that intelligent design, like the theory of evolution, should be taught as a creation theory. Freshwater then agreed to stop teaching the theory and has not done so since.

Source: Tim Waggoner Teacher Fired for Refusing to Remove Bible from Desk, Allegedly Teaching Religion in Class The investigative report finds that

There is a significant amount of evidence that Mr. Freshwaters’ teachings regarding subjects related to evolution were not consistent with the curriculum of the Mount Vernon City Schools and State standards. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement, the evidence indicates he has been teaching creationism and intelligent design and has been teaching the unreliability of carbon dating in support of opposition to evolution. He has passed out materials to students for the past several years challenging evolution and then collecting the materials back from the students. He has done so in spite of specific directives not to teach creationism or intelligent design. He has taught students to use the code word “Here” to challenge scientific process that is considered settled by the high school science teachers.

and

Mr. Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie “Expelled” which does involve intelligent design.

and

Dr. Weston stated that she has had to deal with internal and external complaints about his failure to follow the curriculum for much of her 11 years at Mount Vernon. It has come to her attention many times. She has reported these events to administrators and there have been some attempts to make changes and other instances where they seem to have been disregarded, particularly by one former assistant principal. She said that Mr. Freshwater cannot separate creationism/intelligent design from teaching to the science standards. She stated Mr. Freshwater has a lot of influence with his students that causes her concern. Former Superintendent Jeff Maley said he had received informal complaints regarding Mr. Freshwaters’ teaching creationism/intelligent design rather than evolution. When he had such circumstances with Mr. Freshwater he would tell him not to teach creationism or intelligent design. He stated he never had complaints concerning any other teacher like the ones concerning Mr. Freshwater. He tried to find another position for Mr. Freshwater, but could not do so because he was only certified in science.

A current student said that Mr. Freshwater would throw out both sides of issues, such as the big bang theory, intelligent design, carbon dating and evolution. When asked, Mr. Freshwater would offer his personal opinion such as I believe there was a boat in a flood. He also taught that you can’t trust radiometric dating. One student indicated Mr. Freshwater discussed the meaning of Good Friday and Easter during a class when the phases of the moon were discussed and how it affected when Easter occurs. The Middle School Principal and Superintendent questioned Mr. Freshwater and he acknowledged to them, contrary to our interview, that he “might have discussed” the meaning of Easter and Good Friday, including the “Resurrection,” for one or two minutes. The Superintendent advised Mr. Freshwater that was one or two minutes too long. The investigators found the following material in the second cupboard in the front of the room during a walk through of Mr. Freshwaters’ classroom on May 15, 2008: · A book titled “Refuting Evolution” · A video tape titled “Lies In The Textbooks, Part A 4 Of 7, 10 Lies Of Evolution” · A book titled “Evolution Of A Creationist” · A book titled “The Real Meaning Of The Zodiac” · A book titled “Icons of Evolution”

An interesting selecting of materials indeed. When asked about the branding, Freshwater responded: "I did not John Freshwater did not brand anybody. That is not truth. I did not brand anybody. ' Q: "So someone made it up? " Lawyer: "You have seen a picture that has been purported to be a particular mark, somebody has put the cross designation on that particular mark. John very thoroughly explained not only to the investigators but to anybody who will listen. Hedid not burn, branded or made any kind of religious symbol on anybody. Not himself, not his family and certainly not a student in a public school system. There has not been any medical deduced indicating that that actual mark... Q: I am just asking, that wasn't the result of any scientific experiment designed to put a cross so that you could promote your religious beliefs, that's what I am reading that's what I am hearing Lawyer: He did not design to put a cross on that particular arm. He very thoroughly explained that on many different occasions. Q: Was the cross or the X the result from an experiment you performed on a student. Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let's not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon. In other words, there was a "science experiment" which involved marking the arms of students which had been performed by Freshwater for 21 years as well as other teachers. The question(s) now remain: Was the mark an "X" or a cross? In the investigative report the following statement is made

He said that he uses the device about twice a year and has done so for 21 years. At the end of the experiment the kids are excited and ask if they can touch it. He said that he demonstrates it on his own arm by making an “X” and then lets them touch it voluntarily. He said that the incident in question occurred in December 2007. He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names.

As to the nature of the mark, the report alleges that

The current or former students that were interviewed that had participated in the December 2007 incident or other similar incidents in earlier years described the demonstration in the same manner as had Mr. Freshwater with one exception. They all described the mark Mr. Freshwater put on his arm as a “cross”. One student stated Mr. Freshwater would mark the student with a cross unless the student requested a different type of marking. It was the default mark. The pictures below were provided by the parents.

and the summary of findings

Summary Of Findings Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the complaint and other students in his science class in a manner that was not in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross”.

See also Ohio town split over teacher accused of preaching for a recent Fox News article on "Freshwater".

67 Comments

DavidK · 11 July 2008

Well, now. Seems it's the religious community, "The Community Council for Free Expression (of what?)" supporting Freshwater's claims to teaching science. But where's the Dishonesty Institute in all of this? Hey, try freely expressing yourself by teaching evolution to the Sunday school at the Trinity Assembly of God.

Donations can be made via the PayPal links throughout this website or by sending a check to:

The Community Council for Free Expression
c/o Trinity Assembly of God
yadda, yadda

Quidam · 11 July 2008

Freshwater is a professed Christian so clearly he could not be lying.

The 'cross' is obviously a reproduction of the Laminin protein. It's a shame future students will be denied the pleasure of having one burned into their skin.

Frank J · 11 July 2008

But where’s the Dishonesty Institute in all of this?
— DavidK

Thank you. I kept asking that for a week after the story broke. Someone far better at searching than I found complete silence. I rechecked their main sites recently and still found nothing. Which makes sense. If they criticize him - and they have plenty reason since he undermines their strategy perhaps better than anyone - they alienate their base, but if they defend him, they wasted decades of effort to distance themselves from classic creationism. Nevertheless, I figure they will eventually say something, neither criticism nor defense of Freshwater, but to spin it as "hysterical" reaction of "Darwinists."

Paul Burnett · 11 July 2008

Aside from all of Freshwater's assorted unconstitutional religious activities in the classroom - concentrate on the branding: Why is a teacher who brands anything on a student not tarred and feathered - and "Expelled"?

And why has he not been charged with physical assault on a minor? Where are the police in all this?

How can this lunatic be allowed to be a teacher, or even come into contact with children?

harold · 11 July 2008

As usual, the lies are mutually contradictory.

Which is it? Is he being wrongly persecuted because he "should" be allowed to teach ID, and "rightly" did so? Or because he has no intention of teaching ID, and has been falsely accused of doing so?

Is he being persecuted for branding students with the Holy Sign of the Cross? Or did he merely brand them with an "X" as an "experiment"? Or did he not brand them at all, in which case they must have branded themselves and then lied about it?

It can't be all of this at once, can it?

I guess he started out with the idea of defiant "Sure I preach the Holy Gospel as science, you got a problem with that?" defense. Then he understandably lost his nerve, dumped the "coach", and is now squealing "Holy Gospel? Me? Why I teach only evolution and I never brand anyone!"

Wonderin · 11 July 2008

This is the most thorough of all the Freshwater blogs/articles I have read.
Good Job!

stevaroni · 11 July 2008

Here's the unambiguous tip off...

There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years.

I've never heard freshwater, his lawyers or his apologists complete this sentence. If this were legitimate in any way, this sentence would always have read "This was a particular experiment to demonstrate _________ ." For any real scientist, this is simply the core of any experiment - what does it show? As in... "This experiment demonstrates what happens when a base and an acid react." "This experiment shows how blood typing works. " "This experiment measures the period of pendulums" This "experiment" was about branding little Christians. The fact that he can't complete a sentence used millions of times a day in legitimate classrooms all over the world speaks volumes.

Inoculated Mind · 11 July 2008

This guy is going down, and fast. Changing his story like this is only going to make matters worse. There's too much evidence and too many newspaper stories from the past, describing the opposite of what he is currently saying today.

Larry Boy · 11 July 2008

Seriously, the school board has copies of hand outs he gave to students that ask the question "Is there an I.D. involved.", and hand outs from "All about God ministries" I can't imagine lying to the media is going to get him browny points with anyone. I have to say though, -10 points to fox news for letting him tell such ridiculous lies.

http://www.electrotechnicproduct.com/frequency.asp

Accessories for the device he used show no candidates for an 'x' tip, which implies to me that either he had to use the 'T' tip twice to make the mark, or created his own tip. That a large amount of effort would be spent on intentionally creating a meaningless 'x' symbol seems highly implausible.

harold · 11 July 2008

I almost feel bad making this comment. The guy is so pathetic I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him.

Also, my comment could be mistaken as mockery of someone's religion. It isn't, it's just a comical observation on Freshwater's behavior.

But anyway - he's got the worst of both worlds now. Screwed with both the worldly authorities AND his God.

He can't get his job back by lying and denying his past actions here; the evidence is too strong.

But of course, by recanting and denying his efforts to spread The Word, merely to keep a lousy teacher job, he has denied the very faith that he claimed to be promoting.

So now, the school board has to fire him for doing it.

And God must cast him into the Lake of Fire, for denying doing it.
He could have simply stated that he still held his Christian beliefs, but now understood that Christianity did not need to deny science, and that it was deeply misguided to brand the crosses or proselytize in public schools. Obviously, the physical abuse, although apparently mild, exiges strong action, but he might have negotiated a departure with some kind of severance package if he had been both honest and contrite. I can't see someone with any history of inappropriate physical contact with students retaining any kind of professional license under any circumstances, but honest, dignified remorse would have done wonders.

Instead, at first he disdained contrition, and then he panicked and abandoned honesty.

Stacy S. · 11 July 2008

Paul Burnett IMO- hits the nail on the head. Even if Mr. Freshwater's actions were religiously motivated ... it shouldn't have anything to do with the case.

"I shot that guy in the head because he looked at me funny."

"Well, he shouldn't have looked at you funny.It's most definitely his fault then. I don't know why everyone is picking on you."

It's illegal to shoot people AND it's illegal to brand people. Who gives a crap what the motivation is.

Peter Henderson · 11 July 2008

Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let’s not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon. In other words, there was a “science experiment” which involved marking the arms of students which had been performed by Freshwater for 21 years as well as other teachers. The question(s) now remain: Was the mark an “X” or a cross?

All I can say is that if these types of actions were widespread within a school in NI the school itself would be reported to the authorities (initially Social Services, possible criminal prosecutions pending). Whether the mark is interpreted as a cross or an X is completely irrelevant. Now that Freshwater is claiming other teachers have participated in this so called experiment over the last 21 years does this mean there will be more sackings/investigations ?

Paul Burnett · 11 July 2008

Larry Boy said: Accessories for the device he used show no candidates for an 'x' tip, which implies to me that either he had to use the 'T' tip twice to make the mark, or created his own tip. That a large amount of effort would be spent on intentionally creating a meaningless 'x' symbol seems highly implausible.

You have missed the point, (so to speak). The device is pictured at http://www.electrotechnicproduct.com/pinhole.html . He used the device like a Magic Marker to draw two intersecting lines with sparks on the students' arms - see, for instance, http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5214063 for what is obviously NOT an 'x'.

GuyeFaux · 11 July 2008

Sorry to be thick, but what does this mean:

He has taught students to use the code word “Here” to challenge scientific process that is considered settled by the high school science teachers.

When and how exactly is "here" used? Maybe someone could use puppets or something... And this implies that the alleged branding was voluntary:

He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names.

Is this being challanged? Or is the point that minors can't consent to anything?

Randy · 11 July 2008

Of course Fox let him talk. According to them there is battle between conservatives (bible thumpers) and "secular progressives" (godless atheists).

Paul Burnett · 11 July 2008

GuyeFaux said: And this implies that the alleged branding was voluntary:
He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names.
Is this being challanged? Or is the point that minors can't consent to anything?

While I am not a lawyer, I am quite certain that minors cannot legally consent to physical abuse or mutilation. There may even be case law on this. (But then there was a national government several decades ago that tattooed numbers on minors, probably without their consent. And their military wore belts with their national symbol and the motto "Gott Mit Uns ("God (Is) With Us") on the belt buckles (example at http://perdidatemporal.blogspot.com/2008/06/catlicamente-nazi-literalmente-creyente.html ).)

PvM · 11 July 2008

Look, we all may remember the van der Graaf generator which generates high voltages and makes ones hair stand up straight. The device used by freshwater is normally used to detect leaks and when the electrode moves over a leak or imperfection a white spark can be observed. When used on arms it seems to generally generate a minor discoloration which tends to go away quickly. However, as it is not recommended for such usage, it may cause side effects on some people. So let's not exaggerate the issues here.

Paul Burnett said: Aside from all of Freshwater's assorted unconstitutional religious activities in the classroom - concentrate on the branding: Why is a teacher who brands anything on a student not tarred and feathered - and "Expelled"? And why has he not been charged with physical assault on a minor? Where are the police in all this? How can this lunatic be allowed to be a teacher, or even come into contact with children?

skyotter · 11 July 2008

"When used on arms it seems to generally generate a minor discoloration which tends to go away quickly."

so let's just ignore all that photographic evidence to the contrary. "who are you going to believe: me, or your own eyes?"

Mike Elzinga · 11 July 2008

The device used by freshwater is normally used to detect leaks and when the electrode moves over a leak or imperfection a white spark can be observed. When used on arms it seems to generally generate a minor discoloration which tends to go away quickly.

I used to have one of these in my lab. They aren't particularly dangerous. They are essentially a Tesla coil that ionizes the air with a high frequency, high voltage corona discharge. They just sting a little. However, I think Freshwater's use of it wasn't to do a 21-year "experiment". What would be the point of such an "experiment"?

harold · 11 July 2008

Stacy S.

Paul Burnett IMO- hits the nail on the head. Even if Mr. Freshwater’s actions were religiously motivated … it shouldn’t have anything to do with the case. “I shot that guy in the head because he looked at me funny.” “Well, he shouldn’t have looked at you funny.It’s most definitely his fault then. I don’t know why everyone is picking on you.” It’s illegal to shoot people AND it’s illegal to brand people. Who gives a crap what the motivation is.

True, but if you shot the guy in the head and robbed him, it does make a difference. First of all, it means that there are two crimes to consider, which may make a difference. Second of all, it goes to any question of whether you can claim accident or self-defense. It should always be illegal for teachers to "brand" students with any pattern for any reason, duh, but the illegal presentation of secular dogma as science makes a a difference as well. First of all, the presence of one illegal act does not negate the existence of another. And second of all, if he's known to use taxpayer-funded class time to shill for his personal religion (thus reducing time available for actual science), it makes it more likely that he was branding crosses, and less likely that he was performing a non-religious "experiment".

harold · 11 July 2008

What would be the point of such an “experiment”?

I'll bet he did present the activity as an asinine "experiment", while secretly manipulating a cross pattern, and then claim that the appearance of a cross pattern was a "miraculous coincidence". Fake "miracle" to scare the kids into fundamentalist youth group. That's my bet.

AntiquatedTory · 11 July 2008

Maybe Freshwater wasn't conducting an "experiment" but rather performing a "demonstration" and the lawyer made a poor choice of words?
He sounds like a poor dumb f**k. I imagine most of his students held him in contempt. I come from a pretty biblical part of Ohio myself, and outside of our Christian Day School, my fellow teens loathed the god botherers.

Frank J · 11 July 2008

As usual, the lies are mutually contradictory.
— harold

Excellent! Here are a few more examples for those who aren't convinced.

mplavcan · 11 July 2008

This guy is just not very bright. Given the evidence presented, he is just a bald-faced liar. Stunning, actually. Surely he can read. Surely he knows what the students have said. There is just no way that the media could have manipulated or distorted the record that much. Heck, the Fox News anchor seemed to be trying to be sympathetic. But then again, an awful lot of these fundies have been taught to have a persecution complex, so maybe he thinks it is justifiable in some sick and twisted way.

Mike Elzinga · 11 July 2008

mplavcan said: This guy is just not very bright. Given the evidence presented, he is just a bald-faced liar. Stunning, actually. Surely he can read. Surely he knows what the students have said. There is just no way that the media could have manipulated or distorted the record that much. Heck, the Fox News anchor seemed to be trying to be sympathetic. But then again, an awful lot of these fundies have been taught to have a persecution complex, so maybe he thinks it is justifiable in some sick and twisted way.

I know a few of these characters; and breathtaking inanity barely captures their minds and behaviors. One of them “teaches” computer science, and the students and parents are beside themselves with exasperation and frustration, yet nothing is ever done about him. I saw him at an invited talk on recent research on brain development (an excellent talk). In the question-and-answer period after the talk, this idiot raised his hand and asks if men were supposed to be considered sexier if they were balding from the front or from the back. The speaker tried awkwardly to be diplomatic and the moderator finally moved the discussion along. But at the end of the Q&A part, just as the moderator moved to the podium to close the session, the idiot spoke up in a complaining manner saying, “You didn’t answer my question.” Any time anyone tries to “talk technical” with him, his face goes blank and he changes the subject to something fluffy, often segueing into some religious talk.

harold · 11 July 2008

He sounds like a poor dumb f**k

Yeah, he does, doesn't he? I almost feel sorry for the guy. His lawyer isn't too swift either. "Deny everything" is good advice if you can deny everything. When you can't, though, it's terrible advice. Although he faces no consequences other than unemployment, he is a very rare example of an ID advocate paying something for the fraudulent nonsense they engage in. The weasely crafty ones just get away with it over and over again, and the only people who pay are the American taxpayers. Dembski is doing well. Not even being charged with trespassing by Baylor - which in my view makes Baylor a rather irresponsible neighbor; nuisance crimes should be pursued by the first victim to spare the rest of the community a repeat performance. Who knows which college he'll sneak into next? Behe is a tenured professor in a pleasant college town. The "fellows" of the DI are collecting nice salaries in pleasant Seattle and generally enjoying themselves. Cordova may be dumb enough to actually be living as a grad student in Baltimore (*locale of "The Wire", but that's not relevant here*), although no doubt he has some money pipeline to the DI. At any rate, he slips into a sweet program that plenty of legitimate, hard-working scholars were probably turned away from. But every now and then there's a blue collar dope who believes the talking points, and ends up getting hit by a truck, albeit, usually a small truck. There was that auto body shop clown who got on the school board and ended up getting run out of Dover on a rail. The one the prize is named after. And now there's this doofus. Guys, if you're feeling the pinch, Dembski and Behe and Wells are doing okay. Why don't you ask them for a little Designarian charity? Bwahahahahahaha!

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 July 2008

harold said: It should always be illegal for teachers to “brand” students with any pattern for any reason, duh, but the illegal presentation of secular dogma as science makes a a difference as well.

Granted, but the hurt and loss of trust caused a minor is the major outrage. The creationist crackpot side of this pale in comparison. But yes, let's not forget that he is the IDiot who got caught.

PvM said: When used on arms it seems to generally generate a minor discoloration which tends to go away quickly. However, as it is not recommended for such usage, it may cause side effects on some people.

That is not that the student seem to have experienced:

Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students, causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately three weeks.

Pain and a three week healing period means that the branding was rather deep. I also note that Freshwater failed as a teacher when he showed the students improper use of labeled equipment:

The above device is the BD-10A High Frequency Generator. It is used in science classrooms to ionize contained gases to make them an identifiable color (a really fun lab in normal situations). The tip of this device can put out up to 50,000 volts. There is a warning on the product that says “Never touch or come in contact with the high voltage output of this device”. Which would seem like obvious advice.

Mr. Freshwater, however, decided to apply the device to the skin of several of his eighth grade students. He asked for classroom volunteers who wanted to see how the device worked. Without warning the children that it was going to be used on them and be painful, he pressed it to their skin and left a painful welt behind.

The guy wasn't using it in corona discharge mode, he was using it as a high voltage high frequency branding equipment. This makes me curious: obviously these devices are powerful enough to drive chemical reactions. Which might explain the burn - it was chemical. Is it considered safe practice to pour chemicals that cause blistering onto students?

A book titled “The Real Meaning Of The Zodiac”

This made me curious too. An Amazon book review says:

The book contained a lot of interesting information on the early Zodiacs and how they relate to the Christian Gospel.

Science or religion? You judge.

Stacy S. · 12 July 2008

harold said: Stacy S.
Paul Burnett IMO- hits the nail on the head. Even if Mr. Freshwater’s actions were religiously motivated … it shouldn’t have anything to do with the case. “I shot that guy in the head because he looked at me funny.” “Well, he shouldn’t have looked at you funny.It’s most definitely his fault then. I don’t know why everyone is picking on you.” It’s illegal to shoot people AND it’s illegal to brand people. Who gives a crap what the motivation is.
True, but if you shot the guy in the head and robbed him, it does make a difference. First of all, it means that there are two crimes to consider, which may make a difference. Second of all, it goes to any question of whether you can claim accident or self-defense. It should always be illegal for teachers to "brand" students with any pattern for any reason, duh, but the illegal presentation of secular dogma as science makes a a difference as well. First of all, the presence of one illegal act does not negate the existence of another. And second of all, if he's known to use taxpayer-funded class time to shill for his personal religion (thus reducing time available for actual science), it makes it more likely that he was branding crosses, and less likely that he was performing a non-religious "experiment".

You're right of course. All I was saying is that he should go to jail - no matter what.

Mike Elzinga · 12 July 2008

Pain and a three week healing period means that the branding was rather deep. … The guy wasn’t using it in corona discharge mode, he was using it as a high voltage high frequency branding equipment.

As I mentioned before, I had one of these. I don’t know if the later versions have a way to change the high frequency; that is part of what helps produce the high voltage in the secondary of the transformer. And the high frequency usually keeps the current from penetrating very deep. But, as I mentioned, it stings a little if it is briefly brought in contact with the skin; enough to alert one to pull it away quickly. This suggests to me that Freshwater held these student’s arm and drew the cross pattern relatively slowly. Now that would be cruel.

Rolf · 12 July 2008

I believe that a report of the first attempt at branding a kid here in Norway would have became the #1 news item in all media the very next day.

Frank J · 12 July 2008

I’ve never heard freshwater, his lawyers or his apologists complete this sentence. If this were legitimate in any way, this sentence would always have read “This was a particular experiment to demonstrate _________ .”
— stevaroni

"....that 2000 years ago someone died on an X for us, and someone has to take a stand for him." ;-)

chuck · 12 July 2008

GuyeFaux said: Sorry to be thick, but what does this mean:
He has taught students to use the code word “Here” to challenge scientific process that is considered settled by the high school science teachers.
When and how exactly is "here" used?

I guess I'm thick too. Does anyone know what this is all about?

Frank J · 12 July 2008

Freshwater: “Let me first teach you something. We have three categories evolution, intelligent design, over here we have creation. I teach evolution, I do not teach ID, I do not teach creationism”. Three categories?.… Interesting and telling distinction.

If you listen carefully to the video, he says several times "keration" and "kerationism." Pronunciation aside, if those are supposed to mean what I call "classic creationism," then, yes, there are 3 categories. One (evolution) makes claims that pass the tests, another ("classic creationism") makes mutually contradictory claims that fail the tests, and ID avoids making testable claims. While I would guess that Freshwater and his lawyer are attempting to use every semantic loophole they can get away with, let's give him the benefit of the doubt that, recently at least, he did indeed teach only evolution. Note that he never said that he did not teach the long refuted misrepresentations that he would likely call "critical analysis." IOW, Freshwater likely teaches evolution and unreasonable doubt of it. At KvD it was determined that that indeed promotes classic creationism and evasive ID language. Unfortunately this probably won't be covered in the trial, but if he truly believes a YEC or OEC version of biological history sans "macroevolution," then why on earth would he want to teach evolution? Why not get a job in a fundamentalist school where he could teach a critical analysis of his own preferred explanation, and shield students from the cold, impersonal language of "Darwinism"? Plus, those students would already be fundamentalists, so there would be no need to do "experiments" on their arms.

Airtightnoodle · 12 July 2008

Quidam said: Freshwater is a professed Christian so clearly he could not be lying. The 'cross' is obviously a reproduction of the Laminin protein. It's a shame future students will be denied the pleasure of having one burned into their skin.

Laminin...ha...good one. :) Freshwater seems like a complete kook, and usually I'm too polite to say things like that. I can't believe he has his own site now. Ridiculous.

stevaroni · 12 July 2008

Why not get a job in a fundamentalist school where he could teach a critical analysis of his own preferred explanation, and shield students from the cold, impersonal language of “Darwinism”?

The heathens pay better.

Paul Burnett · 12 July 2008

Airtightnoodle said: Freshwater seems like a complete kook, and usually I'm too polite to say things like that. I can't believe he has his own site now.

Oh, good - let's get back to the origin of this thread. No, Freshwater doesn't "have his own site." http://www.bibleonthedesk.com has been set up by an entity called both the "Community Council for Free Expression" (used on the website) and the "Community Council of Free Expression" (used in registering the website), based in Mount Vernon, Ohio. If you view the source HTML for the website, it says "Bible On The Desk - The Official Site of the Community Council for Free Expression and John Freshwater." Note the "Council" comes first. The website registrant is listed as "Don Matolyak," who is Freshwater's pastor at the Trinity Assembly of God church. "Don Matolyak" gets 128 hits on Google, some of which are kind of odd: Freshwater and Matolyak run a summer camp for foreign students where "...we have to teach them what the bad words are so they know not to say them,” Matolyak said." (http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/081105/exchange.html ) This "Council" is mentioned on a few other websites, such as http://agoodchoice.blogspot.com/2008/05/freshwater-legal-defense-fund.html which proclaims "A Good Choice... America is in the midst of a raging cultural and spiritual war. Forces of Good, Light, Conservatism and a Judeo-Christian Worldview daily battle the forces of Evil, Darkness, Socialism and False Religions and Philosophies. A Good Choice is on the frontlines exposing evil across America’s political and social spectrum." So Freshwater isn't alone - he seems to have a strong support group of like-minded "complete kooks" to assist him.

raven · 12 July 2008

Freshwater will land on his feet unless he is extremely dumb as opposed to just dumb. As a martyr he will end up teaching science at some private xian school or another. There must be a few in that area of Ohio.

There he can brand students to his and their heart's content. And teach the students bafflegab nonsense. From what I can tell, he doesn't actually know any science but since they think science is evil, it all works out in the end.

I had two friends, a couple, who had high paying professional jobs in that area of Ohio. They both left for SoCal after their first child was born. It wasn't clear why they left at the time, but it is now. They must have felt raising a kid there was unwise for various and good reasons.

J. Biggs · 12 July 2008

Mr. Freshwater certainly comes off rather poorly in the Fox interview. The interviewer had a good point at the end of the interview when he stated (hypothetically as the school board) that Mr. Freshwater's behavior should have been stopped 21yrs ago. My hat is off to any eighth grader who not only recognizes unacceptable behavior from an authority figure but will call them on it; That takes a lot of courage.

PvM · 12 July 2008

The interviewer was extremely capable and asked some good questions. Such as "did they lie" when John denied branding crosses in forearms. While he denied 'branding' and 'crosses' he did admit to performing a "21 year old experiment" that other teachers also did/do. That's an interesting spin on words. And of course the pictures of the cross were immediately rejected as not being medically tested and lacking custody. Even though the report mentions that various students clearly understood them to be 'crosses' not 'x'-s and that Freshwater admits to having done the experiment on a few students although he does not remember their names. It's becoming an interesting game of semantics. Such as "I did not brand" to "I performed a scientific experiment", "I do not teach creationism" and "I do not teach ID", I just happen to have resources relevant to both in my classroom and I proposed to teach ID. It all comes down to careful semantics and if this ever comes to a true legal event then a lot of clarification will quickly be forced upon those involved as they will all swear upon a Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Let the truth be heard I say. Wherever it may lead.

J. Biggs said: Mr. Freshwater certainly comes off rather poorly in the Fox interview. The interviewer had a good point at the end of the interview when he stated (hypothetically as the school board) that Mr. Freshwater's behavior should have been stopped 21yrs ago. My hat is off to any eighth grader who not only recognizes unacceptable behavior from an authority figure but will call them on it; That takes a lot of courage.

raven · 12 July 2008

It’s becoming an interesting game of semantics. Such as “I did not brand” to “I performed a scientific experiment”, “I do not teach creationism” and “I do not teach ID”,

It is not the crime that gets these guys. It is the coverup. Ask Bill Clinton, John Quantranno, the Enron guys, or Scooter Libby. This guy is really dumb. Everyone knows when you are caught red handed, don't coverup. Just digging your hole deeper. Obstruction of Justice and perjury are criminal offenses. Right now he is just out of a job. It takes a lack of brain power to turn that into a jail sentence.

RBH · 12 July 2008

Guy Faux asked

When and how exactly is “here” used? Maybe someone could use puppets or something…

Kids in the class were supposed to chorus "Here!" whenever Freshwater told them something from 'standard' science, say the age of the earth, that was contradicted by the Bible. If the kids didn't say it, Freshwater would cue them. It was his private classroom signal for when literalist Biblical beliefs were being contradicted by the science. One child, while writing a homework paper for the class, remarked to his/her parent that when he/she wrote something that was contradicted by the Bible he/she should probably write "here" next to it. (Pronoun ambiguity to protect the anonymity of the student. The parent personally reported the conversation to me.)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 12 July 2008

Mike Elzinga said: And the high frequency usually keeps the current from penetrating very deep.

There's that of course. IIRC I added that since the apparatus was described as "electrostatic".

Mike Elzinga said: But, as I mentioned, it stings a little if it is briefly brought in contact with the skin; enough to alert one to pull it away quickly. This suggests to me that Freshwater held these student’s arm and drew the cross pattern relatively slowly. Now that would be cruel.

Agreed. I was curious about the ability to affect chemical change instead of purely physiological - i.e. a welt could be an inflammatory reaction triggered by a heat et cetera stimulus, or it could be a reaction triggered by an it itself possibly harmful chemical change. But whatever regulation Freshwater could overwrought by analogy is mere academics. It's cruelty that matters.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 12 July 2008

Rolf said: I believe that a report of the first attempt at branding a kid here in Norway would have became the #1 news item in all media the very next day.

True. I would think it applies here in Sweden as well. Perhaps there has been similar cases (we do have a lot of small free churches and cults - not everyone migrated to US), but it doesn't feel like it would happen in the public school system.

Nomad · 12 July 2008

Just a comment on the branding apparatus.. I've seen it described as a Tesla coil previously. Last month I listened to a discussion about Tesla coils, and the concept of the danger factor of RF frequency electricity came up. Apparently a lot of people believe that such electricity will tend to stay on the skin because RF frequency electricity will tend to stay on the surface of a conductor, but in reality the body doesn't act the same way as a metal conductor, our skin is a poor conductor and some things inside of us are better conductors, so the current could still go into the body. One of the hosts of the discussion mentioned taking hits from a Tesla coil to one arm and not feeling much pain, but then later his whole arm would get sore.

In other words the electricity was cooking his arm from the inside. Serious damage, damage not immediately apparent because you're not feeling pain while it happens.

Now extrapolate that to a teacher doing this to students without them even knowing about the danger. Arguably the first thing a science teacher should be doing, even before teaching the actual science, is to be teaching the students sound safety principles. If there's going to be experiments there is the potential for danger. This guy not only failed to do that, he intentionally wounded his students.

It may well be that the device in question was lower powered and the potential for damage is less, but that's still a far cry from it being safe. And seeing how the one student reported long term pain from the "experiment" I'm willing to believe that it did more than irritate the surface of the skin a bit. We'll probably never know the extent of the damage to the arm, but there may have been some muscle damage in addition to the visible branding on the surface.

hamstrung · 12 July 2008

" The investigators found the following material in the second cupboard in the front of the room during a walk through of Mr. Freshwaters’ classroom on May 15, 2008:

· A book titled “Refuting Evolution” · A video tape titled “Lies In The Textbooks, Part A 4 Of 7, 10 Lies Of Evolution” · A book titled “Evolution Of A Creationist” · A book titled “The Real Meaning Of The Zodiac” · A book titled “Icons of Evolution” ""

They found “Icons of Evolution” in his room. Having that book in your room should be reason for immediate dismissal! This would be like having a book on Holocaust Denial in your room. Books like that do not belong in a school.

blorf · 12 July 2008

hamstrung said: They found “Icons of Evolution” in his room. Having that book in your room should be reason for immediate dismissal! This would be like having a book on Holocaust Denial in your room. Books like that do not belong in a school.

Now I could see having one or two such books handy for comparison to real science textbooks. A little Lysenko, some Paley, Dembski, what have you. The clue here is the sheer volume of psuedoscience

D P Robin · 12 July 2008

It is funny (in both senses) that Sal, PBH, keith, FL,etc. aren't chiming here?? 8^)

RBH · 12 July 2008

Hamstrung wrote

They found “Icons of Evolution” in his room. Having that book in your room should be reason for immediate dismissal! This would be like having a book on Holocaust Denial in your room. Books like that do not belong in a school.

Wells's Icons was specifically one of the things that Freshwater requested permission to teach and was explicitly denied permission by the Board of Education in 2003. So he's a cooked goose.

raven · 12 July 2008

The Real Meaning of the Zodiac is occultism by a vicious but fortunately dead creo named James Kennedy of Coral Ridge. It seems to be Xian Astrology. Which is odd since the Zodiac is a preXian Greek invention from the days of Zeus. It is OK for Freshwater to believe any old crackpottery he wants and he apparently believes huge amounts (polykookery is common among crackpots) but it isn't OK to teach stuff like this to kid's in science classes. FWIW, Real Zodiac doesn't seem to have made much of an impression even among fundies. Google didn't even lead to much.

worthynews.com Ancient Israel, the Zodiac, and the Sun God by Thomas Horn, editor of Raiders News Update. The latest edition of Biblical Archaeology Review asks an interesting question: Did some ancient Jews observe the Zodiac and worship Helios, the Greek sun god? Raiders News Update believes 2 Kings 23: 11 and similar verses prove this to be true--but what does this mean? Archaeologist Zeev Weiss describes a mosaic recently uncovered in an ancient Jewish synagogue in Sepphoris in which a zodiac surrounds a striking portrayal of the Greek sun god Helios. Evidently similar artwork has been discovered in synagogues at Tiberias, Khirbet Susiya, Na'aran, Husifa, Yafia, Beit Alpha and Sephoris. Lucille Roussin, writing for the March-April edition of BAR believes she knows why the mosaics were made, and her explanation might bother some people. "The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 156b) records a debate about the validity of astrology for Jews," she says. "Rabbi Hanina, a Babylonian who came to Palestine to study with the great Judah ha Nasi, compiler of the Mishna, said, 'The planetary influence gives wisdom, the planetary influence gives wealth and Israel stands under planetary influence.' In contrast, Rabbi Yohanan, who lived in about 250 C.E., declared, 'There are no constellations for Israel.'" According to Roussin the rest of Shabbat 156b "is devoted to arguments in support of Rabbi Yohanan's position against planetary influence." Roussin points out that this very argument proves that some Jews did indeed believe "that Israel stood under planetary influence" and that Helios was probably a related minor deity to whom they offered prayer. Either way, Roussin cannot help but ask, "What in the world is a Greek god doing in a synagogue?" The same questions provided fodder in the RNU book, The Gods Who Walk Among Us. While Roussin's assumptions are correct in that "Synagogue mosaics from the late Roman and early Byzantine periods in Palestine offer evidence that Jews did indeed believe that Israel stood under planetary influence," she fails to address the bigger issues of 1) where did the ancient Hebrews derive such a notion; 2) did similar religious concepts exist in divergent cultures simultaneously around the world; and 3) does this weaken or support the fundamentalist biblical view of a single Creator. "What in the world is a Greek god doing in a synagogue?" Can zodiacs and dedications to a Greek god in an ancient Jewish synagogue actually provide support for the notion that Yahweh is the one true God and Creator? Probably, and the somewhat unorthodox conclusion begins with a simple idea called Original Revelation. The basic premise is that a perfect revelation existed between God and man "in the beginning." The first man Adam was one with God and perceived divine knowledge from the mind of God. The human was "in tune" with the mental processes of God, and understood, therefore, what God knew about science, astronomy, cosmology, eschatology, and so on. After the fall, Adam was "detached" from the mind of God, but retained an imperfect memory of the Original Revelation including a knowledge of God's plan of redemption. This point of view seems reasonable when one considers that the earliest historical and archeological records from civilizations around the world consistently point back to and repeat portions of a similar Creation story. Two things began to occur in the decades after the Fall: 1) information from the original revelation became distant and distorted as it was dispersed among the nations and as it was passed from generation to generation; and 2) (for those who believe in a real Devil) the realm of Satan seized upon this opportunity to receive worship, and to turn people away from Yahweh, by distorting and counterfeiting the original revelation with pagan ideas and "gods". Instead of viewing the galaxy and stars as a heavenly map laid out by God, men began celebrating the stars and worshiping the 'deities' believed represented by them. "Profesessing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God..." (Rom. 1:22-23). In his book, The Real Meaning Of The Zodiac, Dr. James Kennedy echoes such ideas, pointing out that the ancient signs of the Zodiac record a singular and original revelation—a kind of Gospel in the stars—and that the message of the stars, although converted into astrology after the fall of man, originally recorded the Gospel of God. He writes: There exists in the writings of virtually all civilized nations a description of the major stars in the heavens—something which might be called their "Constellations of the Zodiac" or the "Signs of the Zodiac," of which there are twelve. If you go back in time to Rome, or beyond that to Greece, or before that to Egypt, Persia, Assyria, or Babylonia—regardless of how far back you go, there is a remarkable phenomenon: Nearly all nations had the same twelve signs, representing the same twelve things, placed in the same order....The book of Job, which is thought by many to be the oldest book of the Bible, goes back to approximately 2150 B.C., which is 650 years before Moses came upon the scene to write the Pentateuch; over 1,100 years before Homer wrote the Odyssey and the Illiad; and 1,500 years before Thales, the first of the philosophers, was born. In chapter 38, God finally breaks in and speaks to Job and to his false comforters. As He is questioning Job, showing him and his companions their ignorance, God says to them: "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31,32). We see here reference to the constellations of Orion and Pleiades, and the star Arcturus. Also in the book of Job there is reference to Cetus, the Sea Monster, and to Draco, the Great Dragon. I would call your attention to Job 38:32a: "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?" Mazzaroth is a Hebrew word which means "The Constellations of the Zodiac." In what may be the oldest book in all of human history, we find that the constellations of the zodiac were already clearly known and understood....Having made it clear that the Bible expressly, explicitly, and repeatedly condemns what is now known as astrology, the fact remains that there was a God-given Gospel [universally acknowledged original revelation] in the stars which lays beyond and behind that which has now been corrupted. In his book Dr. Kennedy strongly condemns the practice of astrology, while asserting his view that the constellations of the zodiac were likely given by God to the first man as "record-keepers" of the original revelation of God. The original prophetic significance of the zodiac is summarized by Kennedy thus: [what the signs really mean, LOL]

raven · 12 July 2008

Oops, someone else thinks James Kennedy is serving the antichrist. Well, at least it is consistent with the available evidence. Hmmm, starting to see where Freshwater might have gone absolutely wrong.

watch.pair.com/zodiac: Kennedy's incredibly blasphemous book states that the Zodiac presents the way of salvation, based on the word zoad which, in Sanskrit, means 'a way'. The word 'zodiac', however, is derived from the Greek word zoon which means “animal” from which comes the word zodiakos, meaning “a circle of animals.” For his purposes, Kennedy prefers the esoteric (gnostic), rather than the exoteric (obvious), meaning of the word: “This is often described as a circle of animals. At a deep level we see the zodiac as the path, or the way, and it is the way of salvation revealed in the heavens. But that is not really what the word zodiac means. Rather, it comes from a primitive root, zoad, which comes from the Hebrew sodi, and in Sanskrit means: 'A Way,' 'A Path,' 'A Step.' At a deeper level we see the zodiac picturing The Path, The Way of salvation revealed beautifully for us in the heavens.” (872:16) The Real Meaning of the Zodiac reveals the author's working knowledge of astrology—the occult's false gospel—and ancient mythology, the pagan pantheon of false gods. D. James Kennedy glorifies the ancient pagan gods depicted in the signs of the Zodiac as heroic types and figures of Jesus Christ. His antecedent, E.W. Bullinger, stated in the Witness of the Stars, “These ancient star-pictures reveal this Coming One. They set forth 'the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow'.” According to our so-called 'biblical astrologers', the various houses of the zodiac—personified by wolves, unicorns, sea-goats, phoenixes and pagan gods such as Hercules, Apollo and Zeus—are said to be types and figures of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work. For example, the “sacred fish”, the dolphin, is associated with divine powers in the New Age belief system; nevertheless, advocates of the false gospel in the stars make the astonishing claim that the dolphin represents Christ in His resurrection. Aquarius, the Water-Bearer, was originally Ganymede, the homosexual lover of Zeus, but Kennedy and his antecedents maintain that Aquarius is a type of the Holy Spirit! Capricorn, a half-goat/half-fish representation of the 'lusty god Pan' is acclaimed to be a 'beautiful representation' of Jesus Christ. The androgynous Gemini twins picture the dual nature of Jesus, say Kennedy et al. And Pegasus, the winged-horse who carries the thunderbolt of Zeus, is Christ as the first horseman of the Apocalypse. And so on and so forth ad nauseum. Outrage is an appropriate response for the Christian reader who must endure his Lord, Jesus Christ, likened to the beasts and monsters and perverted gods of pagan mythology. The only explanation for such wickedness can be that that Kennedy is promoting another Christ and another gospel—the false gospel of ancient heathen cultures who awaited the return of their false Christ—be he Horus of the Egyptians, the Babylonian Tammuz, Saturn of Rome, Quetzalcoatl, god of the Aztec and Mayan cultures, Viracocha of the Incas, King Arthur of Great Britain, and the myriad of other supreme deities of pagan traditions—ancient gods who are expected to return from their celestial abode to establish a Golden Age of peace and prosperity on earth.

Andy G · 12 July 2008

A litle aside before I post a lenghty reply.

On the linked website "Bible on the Desk", as y'all have noted, there are rather prominent pleas for donations. Such as:

"2) GIVE. As the board has now presented its case, its time for John's lawyers to step in and do their part. A group of community leaders fomed a non-profit group to collect monies to provide for John's defense."

What? You mean the lawyers are not representing him FOR FREE?!! There's not a single lawyer in his church or neighboring churches that will volunteer to take on his case without charging him costly fees? There's not one lawyer in a church near there who would see that offering John Freshwater his (or her) professional services without cost would be seen as literally a gift from heaven, that to help a fellow parishioner/Christian in such a time of need is the truest expression of what Christian giving should be? WWJD? If Jesus had gone to law school, wouldn't he have taken John Freshwater's case on with no promise of financial gain?

If that website had anywhere to post comments (funny, it doesn't). I'd write a post about how sad it was that every donation made there would ultimately wind up in the pockets of greedy, very possibly godless lawyers. As of right now, there is no lawsuit, as far as I know. So what exactly are these donations going for?

Ah, they must be going to the pockets of the lawyer already hired. But why, if there's no lawsuit, did a lawyer have to be hired? Surely Freshwater could have gotten free all the legal advice he needed at this stage. Did not one Christian lawyer come forward to help him for free? Apparently not, if they're asking for money at that website.

Either that, or that website is all a big scam. Someone up there in Ohio closer to the story than me might want to actually contact Mr. Freshwater and ask him if he is even aware of this and if he has any notion of where any money donated though this website ends up.

Doc Bill · 12 July 2008

Neither Freshwater nor his attorney, Roger Weaver, could be reached for comment last night. Freshwater’s friend, Dave Daubenmire, defended him. “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.

Yeah. Hmmm. If I recall correctly, 8th graders are minors. They can't consent to experiments or torture. Even Science Fair experiments require a lot of paperwork to do an experiment on a vertebrate. Freshwater is a jackass teacher and needs to be canned. What an idiot. Mark a student? It doesn't matter if he used a crayon. It's assault and he should be fired and punished.

Paul Burnett · 12 July 2008

Andy G said: Either that, or that website is all a big scam. Someone up there in Ohio closer to the story than me might want to actually contact Mr. Freshwater and ask him if he is even aware of this and if he has any notion of where any money donated though this website ends up.

As I noted in my earlier reply of July 12, 2008, 9:56 AM, on this thread, the website was set up by Freshwater's church's preacher. It's entirely possible that the good reverend may be a good fund raiser. Whether Freshwater ever sees or benefits from the money raised is indeed a good question.

Paul Burnett · 12 July 2008

There's another website! http://supportfreshwater.com

And it was set up through an anonymizer, so you can't tell who is actually running it. That may be why the other website says it's the only "official" Freshwater website.

Duelling websites...who would have thought? They're competing for money from the same population of credulous Christians, so maybe it's the money more than Freshwater. That's kind of sad.

raven · 12 July 2008

There’s another website! http://supportfreshwater.com And it was set up through an anonymizer, so you can’t tell who is actually running it. That may be why the other website says it’s the only “official” Freshwater website.

That is odd. What is the probability that the money goes to the Cayman Islands, Nigeria, or Las Vegas? Pretty high IMO. A lot of these lunatic fringers get paid well for their efforts. Ham is getting $175,000 per year and I bet his expense account is at least that much.

GuyeFaux · 12 July 2008

RBH said:
When and how exactly is “here” used? Maybe someone could use puppets or something…
Kids in the class were supposed to chorus "Here!" whenever Freshwater told them something from 'standard' science, say the age of the earth, that was contradicted by the Bible. If the kids didn't say it, Freshwater would cue them.

Thanks RBH, all clear now (without puppets!). Bit like visibly crossing one's fingers when telling a "lie". And they let this guy teach not science for how long? Of course in the interest of tolerance he had different codewords for when his teachings contradicted the Bhagavad Vita, The Book of Mormon, the I Ching, The Koran, etc...

Mike Elzinga · 12 July 2008

It may well be that the device in question was lower powered and the potential for damage is less, but that’s still a far cry from it being safe. And seeing how the one student reported long term pain from the “experiment” I’m willing to believe that it did more than irritate the surface of the skin a bit. We’ll probably never know the extent of the damage to the arm, but there may have been some muscle damage in addition to the visible branding on the surface.

It is a little premature to assume this device can cause severe damage. It is a very low power device. The ones I am familiar with produce the high voltage by providing a vibrating interrupter in the primary of a high voltage transformer. The whole transformer is not even a big as the ignition coil of an automobile. The vibrating interrupter is much like the circuit of a buzzer. It makes and breaks the circuit at roughly a frequency of 200 to 400 Hz. By making and breaking the circuit in the primary, the current in the primary goes through rapid transitions (from maximum to zero and from zero to maximum) at twice the vibration frequency. So dI/dt is quit large, hence the rate that the magnetic field changes, dphi/dt, is large. With a large number of windings in the secondary, the voltage is large enough to ionize the air, and the oscillating voltage of the secondary makes ionization a little more efficient. I don’t believe the frequencies of the oscillating high voltage approach anywhere near the high frequencies used in microwave ovens (these are up around 8 or 9 GHz). (I had noticed years ago that the 2J50 magnetron used in the ST Radar sets in diesel submarines was the same magnetron used in early microwave ovens. This magnetron oscillated at about 8800 MHz.) Now these frequencies are at the resonant frequencies of some of the vibration modes of organic molecules and water. That is how they cook. When you get well below these frequencies (as in the case of this little Tesla coil), you aren’t hitting any significant resonances, and there isn’t enough power to “cook” even if there were resonances. But the corona leak detectors have a “splatter” of frequencies, the upper range of which is well below anything used in microwave cooking. All that happens is the inductive reactance of any conductive matter in the body keeps the current flow relatively close to the surface (it’s called the skin effect). But the high voltage close to the skin can ionize material in the skin and slightly below the surface, and cause a mild burn. I might also be concerned that it could interfere with pacemakers if it were used too close to the electronics of a pacemaker. It is painful if held near the skin for any length of time, and it can cause a mild burn. But anyone who voluntarily places the tip near the skin on the arm would know to take it away fairly soon. But I think we should be careful about allowing hysteria to get out of hand with this device. We don’t want to overstate the seriousness of what he has already done by inventing in our minds things that this device is incapable of doing. One could burn oneself with a soldering iron also, but we wouldn't get hysterical about it. But it would certainly be a crime if a teacher used a soldering iron to burn students. Holding a student’s arm and actually moving the leak detector device over the arm slowly enough to make a welt in the form of a cross is already well beyond any limit a teacher should go.

Stanton · 13 July 2008

GuyeFaux said: Of course in the interest of tolerance he had different codewords for when his teachings contradicted the Bhagavad Vita, The Book of Mormon, the I Ching, The Koran, etc...

Just a quibble, but, the I Ching is not a religious text: it is a philosophical text explaining how the system of the "Trigrams" can be used to interpret the flow, movement and interactions of Yin and Yang throughout the observable universe. No specific mention of any gods.

hoary puccoon · 13 July 2008

I can't resist pointing out that the Zodiac does have a real, scientific meaning. It's the belt of constellations through which-- because of the tilt of Earth's axis-- the sun appears to pass in the course of the year. The differences from the astrological zodiac, aside from not pretending to predict human behavior, are;
1. There are thirteen constellations, not twelve, in the real zodiac. (The thirteenth is Ophiuchus, the snake handler.)
2. The constellations are of different sizes, i.e., cover varying degrees of arc in the sky visible from Earth. So they don't really separate the year into nice, neat equal units.
3. The timetable astrologers use to indicate when the sun appears in various constellations is about two thousand years out of date.
Teaching the REAL "real meaning" of the zodiac would actually be a neat unit for an 8th grade science class, introducing some basic concepts in astronomy in an interesting way. But I'm betting that Freshwater's "real meaning of the zodiac" is just as far from standard astronomy as his ideas of evolution are from standard biology.

GuyeFaux · 13 July 2008

Stanton said:
GuyeFaux said: Of course in the interest of tolerance he had different codewords for when his teachings contradicted the Bhagavad Vita, The Book of Mormon, the I Ching, The Koran, etc...
Just a quibble, but, the I Ching is not a religious text: it is a philosophical text explaining how the system of the "Trigrams" can be used to interpret the flow, movement and interactions of Yin and Yang throughout the observable universe. No specific mention of any gods.

I see your quibble and raise you a nit-pick: the I Ching presents a theory of how stuff works, and makes testable predictions. Therefore it may be contradicted by modern science.

Ginger Yellow · 13 July 2008

"A current student said that Mr. Freshwater would throw out both sides of issues, such as the big bang theory"

Both sides? The big bang and steady state theory? How open minded.

Stanton · 13 July 2008

GuyeFaux said:
Stanton said:
GuyeFaux said: Of course in the interest of tolerance he had different codewords for when his teachings contradicted the Bhagavad Vita, The Book of Mormon, the I Ching, The Koran, etc...
Just a quibble, but, the I Ching is not a religious text: it is a philosophical text explaining how the system of the "Trigrams" can be used to interpret the flow, movement and interactions of Yin and Yang throughout the observable universe. No specific mention of any gods.
I see your quibble and raise you a nit-pick: the I Ching presents a theory of how stuff works, and makes testable predictions. Therefore it may be contradicted by modern science.

If you actually read the I Ching, or even read about the I Ching, you would realize that it is about trying to make sense of and detect order in otherwise random events through the use of the trigram and hexagram systems, AND it is meant to be used to compliment scientific and philosophical thinking, not oppose either. I mean, you do realize that the Chinese philosophers came up with the idea of Yin and Yang due to observation, right?

Stanton · 13 July 2008

Ginger Yellow said: "A current student said that Mr. Freshwater would throw out both sides of issues, such as the big bang theory" Both sides? The big bang and steady state theory? How open minded.

Both contradict the third side of "THE BIBLE SAID SO," that's why.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 July 2008

Just a nitpick; isn't that a somewhat narrow description? Yin and Yang is a dualism, one can discuss if it is a material or religious idea, but it is AFAIU part of Tao. Tao is a supernatural principle outside Yin and Yang of the observable world, so I would for all practical purposes remit its philosophy to theology. Possibly one could split the difference and describe it as "mystic", which can be referred to either side. [Personally I usually remit mystics to religion, again for practical purposes, but YMMV.]

Stanton said: I mean, you do realize that the Chinese philosophers came up with the idea of Yin and Yang due to observation, right?

Yeesss ... but that applies to religious Flood, Flat Earth and creationism 'biology' ("stability and separation of species") as well. I don't think observation refutes that it can be a religious idea. The religious ideas that have survived longest have done so by seemingly concur with naive observation. The better argument, in my view, is that it was a product of philosophers. But again, for all practical purposes it looks like it is sorted under a supernatural philosophy.

Jim Harrison · 14 July 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Tao is a supernatural principle outside Yin and Yang of the observable world, so I would for all practical purposes remit its philosophy to theology.

I thought that the tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal and unchanging tao... (Sorry, couldn't resist) Almost all systems of Chinese thought speak of the Tao as something immanent in the world, a tendency or pattern of development rather than something acting on things from outside. Depending on the sage who's speaking about the Way, it can be thought of as very mundane indeed. It can also be used normatively as the way human society should be ordered. Confucius talked about the Tao that way, for example; but he famously didn't want to have anything to do with gods or spirits.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 14 July 2008

Jim Harrison said: Almost all systems of Chinese thought speak of the Tao as something immanent in the world, a tendency or pattern of development rather than something acting on things from outside.

I'll accept that unreferenced for now, I probably remembered wrong. Your description sounds like emergent properties in a way. It is still mystical, of course. :-/

Jim Harrison · 14 July 2008

Two quick references on Tao in Chinese thinking: Benjamin Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China and A. C. Graham, Disputers of the Tao (my personal favorite). Of course it's pretty hard to make generalizations about a whole civilization; but the consensus seems to be that Chinese thought, even the ideas of Chinese mystics, tend towards the concrete--the Taoist technical term for the world is the Great Clod. One of my philosophy teachers, a Benedictine monk who spent some twenty years in China, told me that it was extraordinarily difficult to translate the word "metaphysics" into Chinese. The idea of transcendence was alien to them.