I concur. A scientist is, by definition, one who is learned in science, especially natural science. Merriam Webster's OnLine Directory gives this definition of science: "a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena." What are "general laws" or "general truths"? Macroevolution is neither. It is a theory supported by much evidence, not supported by other evidence. Being a scientist is not the same as being, say, a Catholic priest. Denying the existence of the Trinity will result in a priest being forbidden from holding any teaching or liturgical duty at the least by authority of the local bishop. Who has the authority to "defrock" a scientist who disagrees with random, unguided evolution, be he a intelligent design advocate or a creationist? Who died and appointed the evolutionists as the arbiters?
Those trained in science should teach science. However, belief in macroevolution is no determinant as to whether a teacher is a scientist or not.
Such as?
However, belief in macroevolution is no determinant as to whether a teacher is a scientist or not.
Teachers are not generally scientists to begin with. That being said, I have no particular desire to require teachers to believe anything. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to require science teachers to teach science, whether they happen to believe it or not. Insofar as the theory of evolution is properly a field of scientific study, so it belongs in the science classroom.