Ms. Savage,
Before I write anything, I want to say that I deeply respect anyone who makes teaching the natural sciences their chosen specialty in life. As someone who obviously has a deep interest in this subject, interest enough to teach it to high school students, I think that your devotion is admirable. (Okay, let's get on with it.)
First off, I hope you’ll excuse me when I say that I don’t care if my views offend you or anyone else. I like argument very much, because it encourages people to learn the perspectives of others. Being offended doesn’t move the argument forward whatsoever.
Second, my use of an “old fogey” character in an example isn’t supposed to poke fun at older educators. My favorite professors are well over sixty years old, and are sharper and wittier than anyone has a right to be. Just because I use a character in an example does not mean that I think that this character applies to all public school teachers in Tennessee.
I used an old fool of a teacher in the example to demonstrate that school-age kids, more often than not, take what they’re taught in the classroom at face value. If they’re taught by an elder figure that creationism and evolution are two separate and equally valid theories, then that’s what they’re going to believe most of the time.
My main problem with your response is your assertion that special creation and evolution can be somehow reconciled with one another.
In polls conducted to probe American's views on the origins of human beings, there are usually three separate responses:
1. That humankind was created by God in its present form a few thousand years ago. This is what is known as "special creation."
2. That humankind evolved by God's intervening design, and are a result of his hand through the process of natural selection. This is sometimes called "guided evolution."
3. That humankind evolved on its own, with no overarching designer whatsoever. (This is my personal position.)
Now, take example number 2. It could very well be the case that God created the spark of life and then guided, ever so subtly, the eventual ascent to mankind.
I don’t see any evidence whatsoever for this. (Of what conceivable use were the millions of years of mass extinctions, the failed species, the heart-shattering miscarriages?)
Whatever the case, there’s no way I can disprove that. If you want to see God in the formation and evolution that led to mankind, by all means, go ahead.
However, teaching something like this in public schools is putting one’s religious and personal beliefs in the classroom, something you rightly think is off limits.
Teach children the facts that we know: evolution, as a theory, is far and away the best explanation for the variety of life on earth, no matter its source. They can decide whether or not such a process needs a guide (although, in my opinion, it does not.)
On the question of scientific theories not disqualifying each other: you’re right. Having a theory with overwhelming evidence does not “by default” disprove the other theories. In terms of scientific argumentation, this is a very important point.
Nevertheless, we do not teach the Ptolemaic model of the solar system except as an idea of antiquity. We do not teach, as once was accepted fact, that rats were born from chunks of bread wrapped in cloths and left in a dark room.
Neither of these ideas have been technically disproven. The evidence is simply much stronger in other theories. In practical terms, they are as close to untrue as you can get in science.
My point is that in public schools, teachers must use the curriculum where the evidence really is and leave the God stuff for the kids to decide.