Reply #8: There's a fine line there.

[Igel]

Some teachers I know are creationists (of some stripe). They avoid the issue with students; they may discuss it among other teachers. In any event, their attitude is that there are 9 months of school (7, if you include test prep and testing) but easily 14-15 months of curriculum. Cursorily handling evolution and moving on quickly isn't a problem, since they handle just about everything else cursorily.

Others are vehemently anti-creationist, and denounce it in the classroom. "There is only one scientific approach to biology, and that is evolution. You cannot say you understand science unless you utterly reject all this creationist voodoo gibberish." This does little but offend those who do believe. It's not an argument: It's an insult, an ex cathedra pronouncement, a turnoff worded as a challenge. One must not only be able to deal with the theory and the evidence, one must almost come to the altar and say, "I believe! Halleludarwin!" They make it sound personal and adversarial. It's not.

Many others tip-toe around the problem. They deal with evolution properly in biology class (not so much in Spanish, English, or chemistry); they deal with the evidence, the claims, etc. But they didn't require buy-in, just tolerance. They also leave their own beliefs out of it. "Mrs. Coxswain-Mordekaievovna, what do you think about intelligent design?" "I don't discuss my beliefs, Yitzhak Tsao." Some want to be cool, "Well, you know, I really don't see how it's relevant, there are more important things. Is that new Li'l Wayne?" Others want to be hyperprofessional, "That question is improper, and to respond to it in any way other than citing policy would constitute a violation of the code of professional ethics and place me in violation of the oath that I took upon assuming my august duties as a professional educator in loco parentis and blibbity-blabble."

I like the latter approach, without the hyperprofessionalism.