I'm sorry.
My original post was in reply to #247 from Dimensio, who claimed that he objects to teachers being told what to teach. In reality, he objects to teachers teaching anything he disagrees with. He is perfectly willing to use school boards to enforce what he agrees with, but objects to school boards forcing teachers to teach things he disagrees with.
My point was that his argument is not one of whether teachers are being forced to teach particular things. We are all in favor of that. It is with regard to which particular things teachers are forced to teach.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, he may have a defensible position. But it is one of which science is correct, not one of teachers being given full freedom to decide what to teach. So any claim to be defending teachers "freedom to choose" is simply a red herring.
I haven't noticed a lot of people advocating teacher's right to teach anything they want. The question is whether science curriculum will be developed by people trained in science or by politicians.
But if "critical thinking" become required, it will be applied to things that are currently given light treatment, such as the age of the earth. I would love to see students learn the history of geology.
Politicians are stuck: Is Creatonism science? Should people in Astronomy be taught the Universe is 6,000 years old? Should Geology students be taught there was a worldwide flood? Should students in chemistry be taught alchemy as Zarostrians believe?
Creationism is NOT an alternate theory to TToE. The Universe is NOT 6,000 years old. There WAS no flood.
These things we know.
Religious precepts such as the Genesis Story can be taught in theology class (along with other Origin Stories). But they have no place in science.