Replies

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*?

...Should we then not teach those subjects in school to avoid the risk of teaching something that someone does not consider *science*?

Since over 99% of biologists agree with the ToE and say that both factions of the anti-evo coalition are pseudo science, it shouldn't be too hard to get the consensus of scientific thought, suitably simplified, into the curriculum.

ID and /or one or more flavors of creationism could be taught in the history of science, or in discussions of the scientific method - Biblical/Koranic creationism (at least the Great Flood story) was disproved in the early 1800's and ID is a good example of an untestable, hence unfalsifiable and non-scientific, claim. They're also suitable, IMO, for current events discussions, or rhetoric classes.

That's a pretty harsh sentence for teaching ins a subject area that changes by the day.

The only "sentence" is removal from public employment and a lifetime ban on public employment - no jail, no fines, no ban on owning firearms or loss of any rights.

Today's *scientific facts* are tomorrow's creationist lies

Not at the level of detail suitable for a HS class. A few details change as new data is unearthed, but with the exception of the genetic data and a few fossils, the simplified, HS-level biology from 25 or even 50 years ago has hardly changed.

If FR is any indication, tomorrow's creationist lies will be just like yeaterday's

There is a solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Why?

There are three questions that influence the behavior of all sentient beings:

1) Where did we come from?
2) Why are we here?
3) Where do we go when we die.

The beliefs that anyone has about these questions have religious consequences. Surely, evolution is a subject that addresses, at least the first question, and for many influences their opinions on the the second and third question.

so...how can a government school approach the topic of the origins of life without establishing the religion of some and trashing that of others? Answer: It can't!

And,,,evolution is merely one of ***hundreds*** of curriculum decisions that have religious consequences. The personal beliefs of government school officials regrading the above 3 questions influence decisions regard literature, history, sex education, homosexuality, dress codes, foods served, holidays celebrated, which weekend day will be used for school functions, music performed and taught to the children.

Government schools are a First Amendment abomination. They never were, never can be , and never will be religiously neutral. They will promote one religious worldview over another. They do violate free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly.

The worst part about government schools is that they can and DO use the threat of police action to force students to attend, and to force citizens to pay for its non-neutral religious agenda.

Privatize universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide on curriculum and policies so that the 3 questions, ( Where are we from? Why are we here? Where do we go when we die? ) can be addressed in a way that upholds the religious traditions in the home, rather than actively ( and possibly even maliciously ) undermining them.