AARON Mason, a teacher in a Washington State school, was suspended for two days without pay for showing a creation video and arranging a creationist guest speaker to present scientific evidence supporting creation and a young earth to his eighth-grade class.
However, the ironically named humanist thought police, the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote to the district superintendent complaining that this was not enough, since Mason had ‘shattered the foundation for the students’ further science education’. The ACLU noted that Mason had ‘crossed the line’ before — while working as a highschool wrestling coach, he had worn a shirt depicting Jesus.
‘Teacher’s creationism lesson causes stir’, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA, August 22, 1996.
Also, here's another article about a teacher being punished for admitting he believes in creationism and discussing some of the possible flaws in the theory of evolution. http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=348
The fact is that current curriculum standards almost everywhere prohibit discussion of ID or creationism, and in many cases even discussion of the weak points of the evolutionary theory. The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.
Why should non-science and religion be taught in a science class? What do you mean by "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution?
And who sets curriculum standards for biology? Biologists and biology teachers. If some rogue teacher wants to stray from the curriculum and teach pseudosceince, whether it be Aristotelian physics or creationism, he shouldn't be allowed to.
My point is simply this: let biology teachers set the biology curriculum. You can't let each individual teacher set his own curriculum, nor should politicians meddle in the process. You have to have one standard, which should be set by the pre-eminent biologists residing in the state, not politicians
Every case I've heard of has been either politicians who no nothing about biology meddling in the curriculum, or a rogue teacher going against the overwhelming consensous of his collegues.
The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.
Wrong. They were attempts to force unwilling biology teachers to discuss unscientific "alternatives" to a sound science.