Why not allow multiple theories to be debated instead of teaching solely from the printed texts of Prentice Hall or Holt, Rinehart, and Winston?

What alternate theories? Creationism, ID? Neither of these are even valid hypotheses, as they cannot be falsified. We cannot disprove the existence of a mythical being which cannot be observed. These are not theories, they are junk science. Junk science does not belong in the classroom.

Evolution … needs a belief in the power of natural selection.

Natural selection can be demonstrated, even in the lab. Faith or belief is only required for something which cannot be demonstrated.

but the only difference will be that one will see the creator through the creation.

Thus coloring their observation and preventing them from seeing a simpler solution to the same problem.

If the greatest problem that arises from the teaching of alternative theories is more inquisitive students and future scientists that recognize a creator in their work, then what is the fear about?

For one thing, they will learn that certain “theories” are exempt from scientific standards. Creationism, as I said above, is not a valid scientific hypothesis. As such, we are creating a class of things which fall outside of the scope of science, and therefore ruins science.

But I have also shared my faith in Christ with them…

That could be treading on dangerous ground, especially if you do this during normal school hours. How would you feel if your kid was told by an atheist teacher that your god does not exist?

I have chosen to believe in a loving Creator because of the evidences and the questions that are left unanswered not purely out of blind faith.

What evidence would this be?

Why is it so unhealthy to question a 150 year old theory? We know so much more in science today–Darwin would have never imagined the complexity of the cell and all of its parts needed to perform its functions. Whether we want to admit or not, there are holes in the fossil record and problems with radiometric dating. Scientists, evolutionists and creationists alike, see what they want to see and publish only the data that fits into their preconceived beliefs. The evidence for microevolution (within a species) is undeniable, but we try to use that same evidence for macroevolution (from species to species) because that is what supports the theory that our entire science belief system is based on. Every middle school, high school, and college textbook has the one seemingly substantial fossil “evidence:” the evolution of the horse from the Eocene period. Out of over 100,000 species in the fossil record, we have the horse and a handful of others that are less convincing. The Eocene horse, Eohippus, loses a couple of toes over the course of tens of millions of years, and this is our proof?! What if we are wrong? What if this is just another example of microevolution of one species? What if the horse is not an example but an exception?

When I teach my students how to discover through the scientific method, I don’t tell them to close their eyes to certain things that they may see otherwise. Francis Crick reminded all of us biologists that we must constantly remind ourselves that what we see is not designed but evolved. By closing ourselves off from the possibility of a creator, intelligent designer, AKA God, we are hindering scientific discovery outside of the realms of evolutionary explanation.

I went to a public school before going to the Air Force Academy; I never looked outside of the box of evolution until I was challenged in a public school by one of my students. (These are a few of the questions that were posed: If the moon has such an effect on gravity and it is moving away from us at 3.8 cm annually, then what would life on earth have been like millions of years ago when the moon was much closer? Would the gravitational pull be greater or less? Would the earth’s axis be affected?) They weren’t evolution questions, but the questions challenged me enough to start thinking. (His evolution questions were even more challenging: Doesn’t evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because it suggests that nature is formed from chaos?–he was 14!)

There is nothing unhealthy about questioning evolution (or creation). These are the most important questions that a young person or anyone could ask. Why not allow multiple theories to be debated instead of teaching solely from the printed texts of Prentice Hall or Holt, Rinehart, and Winston? These texts are fantastic, but they are also one-sided and teach evolution as if it were without fault. Evolution is as much of a religion as Christianity. In both, there is a set of beliefs that must be accepted before the evidence can be used to substantiate that set of beliefs. Evolution, whether punctuated or gradual, needs a belief in the power of natural selection. Christianity needs a belief in the omnipotent power of God. The creationist and evolutionist can look at the same bacteria under a microscope; they will both see incredible complexity–both can view in awe and use their scientific knowledge to discover more, but the only difference will be that one will see the creator through the creation. If the greatest problem that arises from the teaching of alternative theories is more inquisitive students and future scientists that recognize a creator in their work, then what is the fear about?

I teach evolution not because I have to but because I believe that it is important for my students to recognize our classification system, use evolutionary processes to explain adaptations within species, and be relevant in today’s scientific world. Charles Darwin was an exceptionally bright man that used his observations to write a book that became a theory because of its validity to science and direct application to the organization of living things. I teach biology and earth science to future doctors and biologists. They will be prepared in their sciences for any major college.

But I have also shared my faith in Christ with them through my actions, my answers to students’ questions, and my love for them because I believe that it is too important to neglect. I am a Christian; I represent Christ. I don’t deserve it, and I often fail. I am sorry for anyone that has misrepresented Christ in your past. I have been guilty of misrepresentation myself, but because of OUR Creator’s love and mercy, He sent His son that I might be atoned for my sins, our sins. Because God is just and holy, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished, and if I really believe that then would ever allow an opportunity (like this) to pass by?

Whether it is law or not (and I am sure some lawsuit will in fact close the debates in schools again), I will teach from my heart: evolution and creation (call it whatever you want). There are lots of questions that we have yet to answer, and I am not going to close my students or myself off to any possible conclusions. “We will follow the evidence wherever it leads” even if it brings us face to face with the Creator.

P.S. I do not consider myself “ignorant,” “stupid,” or a “moron,” but despite my knowledge of evolution, I have chosen to believe in a loving Creator because of the evidences and the questions that are left unanswered not purely out of blind faith.

People who have no knowledge of science should not have any saying about how science should be taught in schools. Just as I wouldn’t dream of teaching Sunday School since I am not a Bible Scholar, I cannot imagine anyone without a science degree deciding that evolution (a scientific fact¡) should not be taught in schools. I suspect these people are mistaking evolution versus the Theory of Evolution by Darwin. Evolution is a sienctific fact, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin proposed it is a theory which has been amply corroborated by experimental data for many decades now.
Dr. Hector P. Caban Zeda

Has been deficient for quite some time. I always joke about having gone to Dade County schools and for that reason could not be expected to understand any science, math, or geography since I didn’t have to take a lot of that in school.

On the other hand, I can type pretty well, and play several musical instruments, neither of which has helped me much in my career as a network engineer.

I graduated high school in 1980. Nevertheless, the patent obviousness of the science of evolution has always been clear to me.

I think the problem is in the name. We never call shooting a rocket off ‘theory of rocketry’ or a new medical discovery part of the theory of medicine. If they call it something other than the theory of evolution maybe the biblically inclined would not get so hung up on the word.