Replies

I think the fairly even nature of this poll represents where our students come, and therefore those who say both points of view ought to be discussed in school are correct.

However, to imply that either faction, ID or Biblical/Koranic/Hindu/Raelian/etc creationism, of the anti-evolution coalition is science is a lie. If a teacher is caught doing this, they should be fired, and, IMO, impeached and convicted by the Legislature so that they can never again be a public employee. Sound harsh? Well, the law specifies that science be taught. Teaching pseudoscience is a violation of the law by a public servant. The way to deal with that is impeachment for high crimes.

Until ID or creationism has produced some testable hypotheses, and passed the tests, and makes more and/or more accurate predictions about experiments and field observations, they cannot be accepted as science. Calls for teaching them as though they were are affirmative action, as well as high crimes.

Teaching pseudoscience is a violation of the law by a public servant. The way to deal with that is impeachment for high crimes.

That's a pretty harsh sentence for teaching ins a subject area that changes by the day. Today's *scientific facts* are tomorrow's creationist lies. What are you going to do, string up anyone who might inadvertently now teach that Pluto is still a planet?

I googled around for science curriculum guidelines and nowhere did I find that *science* is required to be taught in science classes. The guidelines specify which topics are required to be covered in certain classes but is silent on topics outside that. They do know specify what CANNOT be taught, only what is needed to pass the finals, regents, whatever. So there is no limitation on covering material outside the required topics; it doesn't say you can't add, teach, or address them.

Besides, we're dealing with high school education majors who are teachers. Does their opinion and consensus on what exactly constitutes *science* agree across the board? And if so, whose is it that's being applied that way? Someone has to decide what science is. Whose standards are they and where did they come from? What ultimate authority decides these matters? What about theories that are controversial, like string theory and relativity? There's disagreement there so how can you prosecute someone for teaching something that's *not science* when the guilty verdict would depend on the opinion of the jurors. Should we then not teach those subjects in school to avoid the risk of teaching something that someone does not consider *science*?