I was taught evo as a dogma. "The embryos have things that look like gills, therefore we are descended from fish." Poor teaching, sure, debunked--but the student is always at a disadvantage. At the time, I didn't really care except to get my grade, but I knew that I was being fed hokum as fact. If it had been taught as a model, which of course would have worked very well, there wouldn't be many out there who resent the kind of impositions of dogma where dogma does not belong.
Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen. Many who aren't IDers, but simply doubt the overreaching claims of evos, enjoy the frightened dismay of those same evos.
What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious.
And resist all temptation to ridicule a student who expresses doubt about "descendance"-- there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about a doubt--and no teacher should react with emotion when a doubt is expressed.
Of course the bottom line is the fact that we wouldn't even be having this "debate" if the people who have the God-given responsibility for their own children's education, were allowed to send their children to the school of their choice (religious, or otherwise).
Instead we have allowed powerful special interests in "the government" (which our Constitution was put into place to protect us from) to usurp the parent's responsibility and enforce their own agenda-driven ideas on the rest of us.
This has to stop. Parents must insist that they have the right to educate their own children in the schools of their choice.
As far as I'm concerned, Cyber Schools (on-line learning) are the only way to go because one has access to the best teachers in the world from which to choose.
Parasitic government unions need to go. They're destroying our government, just as they destroyed the steel, airline, and automobile industries, etc. Union-backed bureaucracies destroy incentive and attract lazy, incompetent, mediocrities who can't compete in the real world - yet they get paid as much or more than those who excell in their work.
As in, perhaps, like a theory? That is what evolution is, a model (or theory). That is what I learned it as, and the limited teaching I did, that is what I taught it as. One of my favorite fields in grad school was "modeling," that is, working with hypotheses and theories.
Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen.
No, not because they "want a listen," but because they want to undermine the very foundations of science. This is very well expressed in the Wedge Document. The goal is clearly not to improve science, or to improve the theory of evolution, but, as the document states: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." Just what do you think they mean by this?
What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious.
What I would suggest is that the religious cease their attacks on science. But, since that does not appear likely, perhaps scientists should start fighting back even more than they already do.
When we pay college profs a whole lot more than we do now, it will be possible to have a large enough pool to select for highly skillful teaching as well as knowlege of subject. I had a whole lot of truly obnoxious folk teaching me in college...but so long as they knew their stuff I was ok with them. Scientists, especially, do not suffer fools gladly and often are at least mildly afflicted with Asperger's syndrome, giving them few social skills.
As for k-12 teachers, they are not the to half of any college educated group. Few have a good understanding of the science they teach (for instance having students do "experiments" that are clearly demonstrations with right answers).
Those of us living in the real world, wthout an agenda to destroy science and replace it with theocracy, accept the limitations and work to improve, not re-define and destroy.