[presently no screen name]

Well, Mr. Evolution did something right. His intent is to compare ‘his religion’ with other religious myths. His is a religion class - not a science class - and he made that clear from the get go. He made a boo boo in the ‘evo’ world.

[Glenn]

I think this is going a little too far. Your opinions?

You are not looking for opinions. You are looking for agreement.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And evolutionists wonder why the creationists are upset at public school “science teaching”.

Apparently, this teacher didn’t get the memo about how compatable God is with the religion of evolution.

[BlueDragon]

Atheism, in light of 1^st Amendment legal-precedent considerations, can indeed be viewed as "religion". It needs no belief in a higher power, god or gods.

Many atheists fail to understand this, thus the hypocritical double-standard they employ, thinking they can shove their belief systems (even if it be one of unbelief) down the throats of pupils attending public schools.

It could well enough be argued that case law precedent holds two edged swords, which could be used against atheistic teachers whom seek to bully & indoctrinate children into adopting their own, virulently anti-theistic beliefs.

Science, after all, is mute on the question of whether there is a supreme being, or whether there is not, regardless of how many folks attempt to use their own opinions of what the so-called scientific "evidence' means...beyond the mere repeatable and well observed "facts".

As to what various higher courts have found, investigating related matters (well enough related to help define what constitutes "religion", and other related legal considerations) a simple google search yields introductory material such as;

[from Kaufman v. McCaughtry US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]

"As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
and

"...The Supreme Court reaffirmed the utility of the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), in McCreary, 125 S.Ct. at 2732-35. Compare Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2860-61 (2005) (plurality questions continuing utility of Lemon test).

A government policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause if
• (1) it has no secular purpose,
• (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or
• (3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.

  Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13; Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 301 (7th Cir. 2000). The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason. See Linnemeir v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 260 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2001); Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he First Amendment does not allow a state to make it easier for adherents of one faith to practice their religion than for adherents of another faith to practice their religion, unless there is a secular justification for the difference in treatment.”); Berger v. Rensselaer Cent. Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160, 1168-69 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Under the Establishment Clause, the government may not aid one religion, aid all religions or favor one religion over another.”)."

Certainly the teacher's [reported] behavior can scarcely be covered under bullet point # 1 above.
Under points 2 and 3 in the Lemon test, it appears the teacher is absolutely not protected, in much the very same way as teachers of say, Christian belief, have been prohibited from hardly ever being able to even mention or discuss their own personal beliefs (belief systems) without causing some "separation of church and State" uproar, much less indulging themselves in blatant and open religious indoctrination of public school pupils, such as the teacher in question [reportedly] does, in this instance http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2350296/posts.

And that is just for "starters"...there is more, much more along the same lines, with a great many Appellate level arrows pointing in much the same direction. The issue itself is fairly ripe for litigation. What is needed is the right circumstance, and money.

...italicization, paragraph spacing, bullet points, bolding etc, in the excerpts from the publiched legal texts, my own, added for emphasis & clarity...

[goldi]

Tell your nephew to let Mr. E. natter on all he wants to. Your nephew needs a good grade. Let him humor the idiot.

There is no point in being confrontational. This jerk teacher probably wants that — he wants to make a name for himself while failing kids who don’t go along with him. Screw him. Your nephew should just want to get out of his class, out of that school, in one piece.

Public school is not worth the bother. Humor the bastards and laugh.

[SaraJohnson]

If he persecutes Christian kids, he could be in trouble. But not likely if the Left is running his college.

[Republic of Texas]

Sounds like he needs to start taping lectures.