UPDATE: Cross "Burned" on Student

A reading of the actual complaint filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division by the parents of “James Doe” reveals a likely agenda that is not apparent in most of the news stories. It also raises some questions about what actually occurred when the 8th grade student was “burned” by the teacher using a common teaching tool called a Electro-Technic BD-10A high frequency generator.

The complaint seeks “compensatory damages and punitive damages for the egregious actions alleged herein” and then proceeds to list the allegations against science teacher John Freshwater:
· He displayed the Ten Commandments in his classroom as well as religious posters, Bible passages and several Bibles.
· He taught his own religious beliefs.
· He taught the meaning of Easter and Good Friday.
· He expressed disagreement with some items in their text book.
· He used “code words” to indicate his disagreement with points in the course work.
· He used the code word “here” in his classroom [?].
· He taught Intelligent Design in his classroom.
· “On December 6, 2007, Mr. Freshwater burned a cross into James Doe’s arm using a device manufactured by Electro-Technics Products, Inc., Model BD-10A.”
· “The area burned by the Electro-Technics device resulted in an easily identifiable cross consisting of red welts and blistering, swelling and blanching in the surrounding area.”
· “Mr. Freshwater has conducted and lead prayers in Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) meetings.”
· “Mr. Freshwater has asked students to lead prayers in FCA meetings.”

It appears obvious that James Doe’s parents are much more concerned about Mr. Freshwater’s teaching content and religious beliefs than about any “egregious” physical harm inflicted on their son. That may be because the alleged injuries are far in excess of any harm the device could impart.

The Columbus Dispatch interviewed Gerald Cuzelis and reported the following:

A shock from the device would feel like the static shock from touching a metal doorknob after walking across carpet on a dry winter day, said Gerald Cuzelis, who owns the company that makes the tool.
But touching a doorknob doesn't leave a welt.
‘We have instructions to warn people that it's not a toy,’ said Cuzelis, who owns Electro-Technic Products in Chicago. ‘If this device is directed for seconds (on the skin), that's a clear misuse of the product.’
Cuzelis said he is not aware of anyone seriously hurt with the device and said that his company has never been sued for injuries.

As an emergency physician I have seen many different kinds of burns and other injuries but have never seen a static shock produce anything remotely described by the Does and their attorneys. It is curious to me also that the photo (not referenced in the complaint, by the way, nor are any medical reports) seems to be an amateur shot, likely with a cell phone, taken in what appears to be a public restroom. Had I seen an injury such as this in the ER there would have been dozens of detailed photographs to document the extent of the trauma. Frankly, the photograph accompanying all the news stories, in my opinion, is not consistent with the alleged assault. I believe we’ll be hearing much more about this case as it proceeds through legal machinations.

Cellular Design--What Darwin Never Knew

Darwinism is a 19th century theory that was developed when the cell was thought to be nothing more than a tiny glob of gelatinous material. We now know just how complex, specialized, intricate and finely controlled cells really are. It is easy for evolutionists to speak of homologies such as the similarity of bony structures of a bird's wing compared to the forelimb of a mammal, but the molecular and biochemical workings of an organism are completely inexplicable by supposed evolutionary mechanisms. This is why Michael Behe calls the cell "Darwin's Black Box."

Within a typical cell there are organelles that are analogous to our organs (such as heart, liver, kidney, etc.). Each of these organelles has a very specialized function from production of proteins, energy production and transfer, elimination of wastes, communication with surrounding cells and on and on. There is a meshwork of microtubules that transport material in and out and around the cell that acts like trolley tracks. There are specialized protein structures that move along these tracks carrying other components, thus acting as trolley cars to make sure that all the organelles have the material that each needs to function efficiently and waste products are carried away. This latter process is seen in the video as the protein literally “walks” along a track carrying a large structure behind.

I get frustrated when evolutionists dictate the terms of the conversation and speak of similarities between different species as evidence of common ancestry. Could it just as well be evidence of a common designer? And what of the radical differences between the different phyla (e.g., worms, insects, clams, vertebrates, etc.)? If similarities represent evidence of common ancestry, does dissimilarity therefore give evidence uncommon ancestry? Or maybe a very clever Designer who created many different kinds of life with many different variations on each theme?