Can science teachers refuse to teach creationism.?

Question

I've been doing some reading about the new republican vp pick and found that she wants creationism to be taught along side of evolution in public science classes. Lets say this would happen. Could science teachers reject teaching it knowing its bull S*** and not science? Or would they loose their jobs by not following the new curriculum.

Answer 1

It will never happen.

1. Education is a states issue.

2. the establishment clause is very clear.

3. This specific issue has been tested in the courts repeatedly.

So no, The person losing their job is the one suggesting we should go against the Constitution.

Interestingly - we teachers often have to sign a loyalty pledge - the same as the vice president - here is Californias - every teachers must agree to have their job:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support

     and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-

     tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign

     and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the

     Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the

     State of California"

Sounds like the law is on my side.

Answer 2

First, it ain't gonna happen.  Besides the fact that it is a direct violation of the Constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States don't set school curriculums ... that it entirely controlled by State Legislatures.

... And she knows this.   Republicans have a long history of saying things in speeches that religious fundamentalists want to hear ... knowing full well that they can't deliver on any of them.   Bush also said the same thing, along with all the other issues that drive the fundamentalists to the voting booths (abortion, g*y marriage, prayer in schools, etc.) ... but in the eight years he's been in office how much effort has he put into any of these issues.   Unlike real issues like the economy or the war, it is *far* more useful to do nothing on these issues of importance only to fundamentalists, so that they can be stirred up again election after election.  

The important exception, of course, is the President's power to appoint  Supreme Court justices to whittle away at these Constitutional barriers.   And that is why these issues *are* important to the rest of us who prefer to keep our religion separate from politics, education, and science.

But as to your question ... if I were a teacher I would be personally *delighted* to be forced to deal with a comparison between Creationism and Evolution in a science classroom.  I'd spend a week on it ... heck, I'd bring it up every class.  I'd keep a scoreboard up on the wall, and week after week say:  "So, kids, that's how Evolution explains human Chromosome #2.   Let's see how Creationism explains it. (Silence.)  So that's one more point for Evolution, bringing us to Evolution 237, Creationism 0.  Next week we'll talk about junk DNA and mitochondrial endosymbiosis, and after spring break we'll talk about biogeography, embryos, homologous and vestigial structures, and atavisms."

Answer 3

What the h**l? That *****. Science seems to be the only escape from religion, and they want to take that away from us. She can go kiss McCain's ***.

Answer 4

They have to teach the curriculum, but there are "creative" ways of talking about creationism.

For example, people started out with earth, wind, air, and fire as the elements in ancient times.  Later on folks took a biblical view (i.e. creationism).  About 100 years ago modern science started to evolve with ever more insightful and powerful theories.

The test of a theory is if it explains current data and predicts future research paths.  Creationism does not do as well in this regard as current scientific theories.  Just as the wave theory of light did not explain the photoelectric effect.

What what it is worth, the words used to describe the opening moments of the big bang theory are not a heck of a lot different from the opening words of Genesis:  "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep ... Let there be light"

"The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing ...   the very beginning of the Universe physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons.

Photons = light.

So if you want to include creationism in a science curriculum, that is how you do it.  One more theory (not so good in this case) that was discarded into the ash heap.

The only reason we "believe" in the atomic theory of matter ... yes it is still a theory ... is because we can make atomic bombs and invent the internet so folks can spew on Yahoo! Answers.  Creationist beliefs lead lead to an Amish livestyle that is terribly vulnerable to getting overrun.