To get a job as a teacher you just need a not-very rigorous B.A. and a certification. And you will make more than someone with most other kinds of B.A.'s (e.g. English, Sociology, Psychology,etc). All this and you get summers off.
Teachers are indeed grossly underpaid. They shouldn't have to work during Summer either. It's one of the most stressful positions and they do deserve a break from the madness.
Give me a break.
Maybe teaching high school is stressful, but elementary is not. The teachers at my district have a 6 hr school day which leaves 2hr for grading and administrative stuff. They then have a in-service day where school gets out early so the teachers can leave early if they happened to work any overtime the previous week. (this for a salaried position!)
Most engineers I know work 60 hr weeks or more. If you divided an engineering salary by the hours worked, you'll see that it really isn't much more than teachers make.
And really most of the stress of teaching is directly related to how poorly run the schools are. It is stress in dealing with management or dealing with students that weren't properly taught in lower grades. Why is it that private schools can attract the best teachers and pay them less than public schools?
The Fundies might be a problem with teaching biology. But they have little to do with the poor school systems in the US. If you look at which states have the worst schools it has very little correlation to states with lots of Fundies, and more to do with states that have poorly performing state governments (CA, MS, LA, etc)
No change can happen though. It is disallowed by the union.
You repeat this like a mantra. Any attempt to ascribe a single malicious motive to organization made up of thousands of people, who if questioned individually would tell me that the students come first, is likely to be fallacious.
I love unions in the abstract. Unions can be a great force for good. Some Unions like the Steelworkers are just fickin' awesome in the good things they do for their memebers and our country.
But some unions in the specific are bad. Teacher's Unions are not awesome. Not even a little bit, unless you count being "awesomely bad" as being awesome. They are a cancer on this country that enforces an idiocracy on our schools.
It is hard to understate how much harm teacher's unions are doing to the US.
I am told by a parent of a young child in a local school that they have an award ceremony where they now have the cut-off for rewards around an average of 70 and up. During the ceremony, at least 3/4ths of the class receives awards.
At my local school they have an award ceremony every month. They give out 'student of the month' awards instead of honor roll type things. You get 'student of the month' because a teacher picks you for needing a self-esteem boost.
They also give out citizenship awards for helping other kids and being nice to other kids. My kid got several at first and was all excited so he tried to look for extra opportunities to nice things for other kids so he could win more. But then they stopped giving him awards because they decided that he was winning too many and other kids needed a chance to win.
Stuff like this really make me appreciate "The Incredibles" more and more.
When I first moved to LA, I lived in Pasadena and I volunteered to be a math tutor at a local high school. The kids didn't know very basic stuff that they should have learned in elementary school... but that's not the scary part. These kids were trying very hard to figure out the material, they weren't just coasting (the tutoring program was voluntary). I was helping a girl with fractions and I explained them to her in like 15 minutes and a light went off, and she got it. She wasn't having trouble because she was stupid or wasn't trying... it was just that no one had ever explained it to her before. No one had ever sat down with her for just 15 min and explained it. AND the worse part is that kids at other tables dropped what they were doing to come over and listen too. It was so sad, and it really made me feel bad for how the school was failing them.
After that experience I was determined to try really hard to get my kids into a good school district. Buying a house in such a good district was a real hardship, and required us to get one of those 'sub-prime' loans. So now I have one of those time-bomb mortgages where the rates are going to shoot up in a few years... all to get into a school district which turns out to not be much better than the one in Pasadena.
There are now home-school charter schools that will have an accredited teacher monitor your kids progress as you teach them. They can give good advice to help you and they give you a paper-trail to show that you really taught your kids.
K-12 Teachers (with B.A.'s) make an average starting salary of $33k/yr. Accountants start at $48k/yr on average. But the teachers salary is for working 9 mo a year and they can make more if they teach summers too... this makes the teacher average starting salary equivalent to $44k/yr. This compares well to accountants. Engineers make more ($55k/yr), but most other bachelors degrees make less (in the $30K/yr ranges).
And in the LA area (where I live) the pay is significantly above the national average yet the schools are some of the worst in the country.
So lets kill the "teachers are underpaid" meme. This was true 20 years ago, but it's no longer true.
The brain is an intuitive and inductive reasoning machine; mathematics is rigorously logical and deductive. It's also highly abstract, and as long as it has to be taught in schools, it will remain that way. The reason most kids think math isn't easy is because, well, it isn't.
This attitude is very common among US math teachers, but not math teachers in Singapore, China, Japan, etc. I don't think it takes rigorous logic to deduce why the US performs worse than these countries in teaching kids math.
You know teaching kids to their full potential is a hard thing... but our schools don't even teach them to enough of their potential to do no harm. What I am demanding of our school system is that they stop damaging bright kids with the potential to do great things.
Einstein/Mozart/Newton/Jobs level intelligence is 1/1,000,000,000. This means that in LA schools there is a good chance of a little Einstein there somewhere... what do you think her odds are of being developed to the point where she can make some use of her potential? Now if she were a golf prodigy what do you think her chances would be?
A little respect for people who are tasked with doing what is essentially AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB is due.
It's such an impossible job that every country in the world is just a big a failure as the US in teaching math??
If it is an impossible job then why do we bother spending tax payer money even trying? Seriously, why in the world would we as a society spend so much money to try and make something impossible happen?
I guess it being an impossible job has nothing to do with the fact that teachers in CA don't even work full 8 hour days and have teaching in-service days to make back any extra overtime hours that they might have accidentally worked?
I guess it being impossible has nothing to do with the schools paying people based on seniority rather than performance so that there is little incentive to try to improve upon the status quo.
We MUST do better by our kids. We must do better by kids of all ability levels. Why do we have special education on one end of the intelligence scale and not on the other end?? Exceptionally gifted kids are roughly 1/1000. Which means that most schools would have several, yet virtually no schools do anything to help these kids.
An example: my school district has a math/science magnet high school, but so many kids qualify that they have a lottery to give kids spots. This is because the standard is that kids have a C-average and be in the top 70% of standardized testing. This, in my view, makes the magnet essentially a scam to get gifted education funds from the state rather than an honest effort to help gifted kids. I could make similar points about most school districts in CA about their magnets and their GATE programs.
Most of our country's math teachers don't understand math well enough to make it interesting. They think it is just memorizing 'math facts' and memorizing cookbook ways to solve problems. They don't see it as understanding the underlying structure of the world or as creative problem solving. They see creativity as something for writing class and understanding as something you get from reading textbooks.
This is what we just did last week. We pulled our kids out of school because we were so disgusted with the "tall poppies" attitude to academic achievement. I.e, the idea that the flowers that stand taller in the flower bed need to be pruned to keep them in line... or that the kids who want to learn more need to be force to do work that the find drudgery just because they can't move ahead of the rest of the class.
My 2nd grader's teacher was complaining that he wasn't doing his math worksheets or playing the adding games in class. I saw one of his math worksheets where he was so bored that he looked up Roman numerals in one of his books and taught himself how to do the whole homework in Roman numerals... and then I saw where the teacher then made him re-do the 'right-way'. We've had similar experiences with his past teachers and the principal has a similar attitude that he should do the same work as everyone else in the same way.
He's been home-schooled for only a week, and now he's gone past the adding 1-digit numbers that they were doing in class and is now adding and subtracting three-digit numbers with carrying and borrowing. He has no trouble getting his math worksheets done now. He's even said that "This is harder, but more interesting so I like it."
AND I live in one of the better school districts in the LA area.. where the teachers are well paid...
I'm a left-winger and I used to be all against school vouchers... but now I've seen the light. We need real competition, and we need to bust the teacher's unions to get the bozos out of our school system.
It's not that parents aren't involved... It's not that teachers don't get paid enough... It's not the burden of standardized tests. It's that our nation's schools are run by a bunch of bozos who pay teachers on the basis of seniority instead of performance, bozos who disparage being elite academically, but celebrate athletic elitism, and frankly that among the ranks of our teachers are some of the dumbest people in our society.
"Among his chief inspirations to think about the origin of the universe, we draw attention to his persistent fascination of light as the primeval state of the world. Although this idea was originally seen in a theological perspective, religion played no direct role in Lemaître's hypothesis of 1931."
His theory was constructed with mathematics but was inspired by a desire to find a moment of creation and his attraction to the concept that "in the beginning there was light". This does not diminsh the Science in his approach, but I bring it up to point out that religious notions can inspire theories that are real science... unlike, I.D. which is not science. Furthermore, even when science is inspired by religion, religious people may still reject it:)
Claiming that he based it on Genesis is therefore a notable disservice to the memory of a brilliant scientist whose work was often discounted by others at the time because they accused him of peddling Creationism disguised as science.
The Big Bang is clearly inspired by Genesis. Many great theories come from some notion that is built into a framework that produce testable hypotheses. Just because it comes from a desire to explain the Universe with a moment of creation, that doesn't make it "Creationism disguised as science."
What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one.
Indeed. You got a problem with that?
No I don't have a problem with that... I like philosophy. I'm just saying that Science is very limited in its scope... which I think is a big part of why it is so successful.
Discuss Creationism and methods to reconcile creation with science in philosophical terms... not as Science, because such things are outside of the scope of science. (e.g. rocks exist, but they aren't food... so don't think of rocks in terms like food (nutrition, etc).. think of rocks in a broader context).
One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.
The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.
Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).
The problem is that in I.D., the intelligence that interacts with the natural world is supernatural in nature and beyond the scope of science. That doesn't make I.D. notions meaningless, but it does make scientific discussion of I.D. meaningless and a waste of time.
If human intelligence is 100% natural in nature then Science has hope of someday explaining how it arises... but rather if human intelligence has a supernatural component, i.e. a soul, then science will not ever be able to explain intelligence.
If the Intelligence in I.D. is natural rather than super-natural then the existence of this intelligence can be tested via Scientific methods. However, such a test comes awfully close to proving or disproving the existence of God. That is why God is to be considered supernatural and beyond the natural world and the realm of Science. An Atheist would be one who discounts the supernatural and a Theist would be one who believes in some notion of the Supernatural. An Atheist is therefore forced to accept Science, but a Theist is forced to neither accept nor reject Science.
<ok enough being polite... now I'm going to go into a Palin-induced rant-mode>
This is the philosophical framework of Science laid down by DesCartes. Proponents of I.D. are at best ignorant of what the word "Science" actually means, and at worst they are dishonest in their attempts to proselytize their religious views under the guise of pseudo-science.
We would be well to remember that the current scientific enlightenment that brings us the many benefits of modernity is but a small blip in human history. To protect our children from the brutish lives more typical of humanities 20,000+ year history, we must stand steadfast in our opposition to the mindless minions of conformity and orthodoxy who would force-feed us knowledge based on tradition and authority over knowledge based on reason, questioning, and experiment.
The problem is that if you teach creationism in Science class, what happens when you disprove someone's religion? Many types of creationism can be disproven by Science, because Science limits itself to the natural world and supernatural explanations are not part of science... What happens to that Science teacher in Wasila? I know what would have happened to a teacher that dared to disprove 6-day creationism in my home town.:(
If you're going to teach creationism in science class, use something like the Flying Sphaghetti monster to illustrate how it is beyond the bounds of Science and a waste of breath to even discuss as Science
What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. Science is a branch of philosophy that limits its scope to the natural world. Supernatural theories are beyond the bounds of Science... comparing your theory to Science is like trying to compute the nutritional value of a rock... or the arithmetic sum of a frog and a flower... it's out of scope and meaningless. The fact that most Americans don't get this basic tenet of Science shows how very bad our Science education is.
Maybe Evolution can't be proved true... But the Creationist story laid down in the Bible can be disproved in a few minutes. The I.D. people teach a version of creationism different from Genesis, one twisted and morphed from the Biblical story so as not to be so readily disproved... but what they're left with is something with neither a scientific basis *or* a religious basis.
We have myriad proof that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old (geology throughout the Solar System, radioactive decay, stars, the existence of heavy elements, fossils). Ergo Creationism is as de-bunked as the hypotheses involving abnormally large turtles. Heck, the Creationist story in Genesis isn't even self consistent.
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
To get a job as a teacher you just need a not-very rigorous B.A. and a certification. And you will make more than someone with most other kinds of B.A.'s (e.g. English, Sociology, Psychology,etc). All this and you get summers off.
Teachers are indeed grossly underpaid. They shouldn't have to work during Summer either. It's one of the most stressful positions and they do deserve a break from the madness.
Give me a break.
Maybe teaching high school is stressful, but elementary is not. The teachers at my district have a 6 hr school day which leaves 2hr for grading and administrative stuff. They then have a in-service day where school gets out early so the teachers can leave early if they happened to work any overtime the previous week. (this for a salaried position!)
Most engineers I know work 60 hr weeks or more. If you divided an engineering salary by the hours worked, you'll see that it really isn't much more than teachers make.
And really most of the stress of teaching is directly related to how poorly run the schools are. It is stress in dealing with management or dealing with students that weren't properly taught in lower grades. Why is it that private schools can attract the best teachers and pay them less than public schools?
How about a teacher with 20yrs experience vs an accountant with 20 yrs?
why are teachers paid for experience and not performance?
The Fundies might be a problem with teaching biology. But they have little to do with the poor school systems in the US. If you look at which states have the worst schools it has very little correlation to states with lots of Fundies, and more to do with states that have poorly performing state governments (CA, MS, LA, etc)
No change can happen though. It is disallowed by the union.
You repeat this like a mantra. Any attempt to ascribe a single malicious motive to organization made up of thousands of people, who if questioned individually would tell me that the students come first, is likely to be fallacious.
I love unions in the abstract. Unions can be a great force for good. Some Unions like the Steelworkers are just fickin' awesome in the good things they do for their memebers and our country.
But some unions in the specific are bad. Teacher's Unions are not awesome. Not even a little bit, unless you count being "awesomely bad" as being awesome. They are a cancer on this country that enforces an idiocracy on our schools.
It is hard to understate how much harm teacher's unions are doing to the US.
I am told by a parent of a young child in a local school that they have an award ceremony where they now have the cut-off for rewards around an average of 70 and up. During the ceremony, at least 3/4ths of the class receives awards.
At my local school they have an award ceremony every month. They give out 'student of the month' awards instead of honor roll type things. You get 'student of the month' because a teacher picks you for needing a self-esteem boost.
They also give out citizenship awards for helping other kids and being nice to other kids. My kid got several at first and was all excited so he tried to look for extra opportunities to nice things for other kids so he could win more. But then they stopped giving him awards because they decided that he was winning too many and other kids needed a chance to win.
Stuff like this really make me appreciate "The Incredibles" more and more.
But at least it hasn't made you bitter. ;)
When I first moved to LA, I lived in Pasadena and I volunteered to be a math tutor at a local high school. The kids didn't know very basic stuff that they should have learned in elementary school... but that's not the scary part. These kids were trying very hard to figure out the material, they weren't just coasting (the tutoring program was voluntary). I was helping a girl with fractions and I explained them to her in like 15 minutes and a light went off, and she got it. She wasn't having trouble because she was stupid or wasn't trying... it was just that no one had ever explained it to her before. No one had ever sat down with her for just 15 min and explained it. AND the worse part is that kids at other tables dropped what they were doing to come over and listen too. It was so sad, and it really made me feel bad for how the school was failing them.
After that experience I was determined to try really hard to get my kids into a good school district. Buying a house in such a good district was a real hardship, and required us to get one of those 'sub-prime' loans. So now I have one of those time-bomb mortgages where the rates are going to shoot up in a few years... all to get into a school district which turns out to not be much better than the one in Pasadena.
So, yeah, I'm a little bitter.
There are now home-school charter schools that will have an accredited teacher monitor your kids progress as you teach them. They can give good advice to help you and they give you a paper-trail to show that you really taught your kids.
Here's an example: http://skymountaincs.org/
I found this from some googling...
K-12 Teachers (with B.A.'s) make an average starting salary of $33k/yr. Accountants start at $48k/yr on average. But the teachers salary is for working 9 mo a year and they can make more if they teach summers too... this makes the teacher average starting salary equivalent to $44k/yr. This compares well to accountants. Engineers make more ($55k/yr), but most other bachelors degrees make less (in the $30K/yr ranges).
And in the LA area (where I live) the pay is significantly above the national average yet the schools are some of the worst in the country.
So lets kill the "teachers are underpaid" meme. This was true 20 years ago, but it's no longer true.
The brain is an intuitive and inductive reasoning machine; mathematics is rigorously logical and deductive. It's also highly abstract, and as long as it has to be taught in schools, it will remain that way. The reason most kids think math isn't easy is because, well, it isn't.
This attitude is very common among US math teachers, but not math teachers in Singapore, China, Japan, etc. I don't think it takes rigorous logic to deduce why the US performs worse than these countries in teaching kids math.
Both Jobs and Gates are geniuses in the realm of business
You know teaching kids to their full potential is a hard thing... but our schools don't even teach them to enough of their potential to do no harm. What I am demanding of our school system is that they stop damaging bright kids with the potential to do great things.
Einstein/Mozart/Newton/Jobs level intelligence is 1/1,000,000,000. This means that in LA schools there is a good chance of a little Einstein there somewhere... what do you think her odds are of being developed to the point where she can make some use of her potential? Now if she were a golf prodigy what do you think her chances would be?
A little respect for people who are tasked with doing what is essentially AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB is due.
It's such an impossible job that every country in the world is just a big a failure as the US in teaching math??
If it is an impossible job then why do we bother spending tax payer money even trying? Seriously, why in the world would we as a society spend so much money to try and make something impossible happen?
I guess it being an impossible job has nothing to do with the fact that teachers in CA don't even work full 8 hour days and have teaching in-service days to make back any extra overtime hours that they might have accidentally worked?
I guess it being impossible has nothing to do with the schools paying people based on seniority rather than performance so that there is little incentive to try to improve upon the status quo.
We MUST do better by our kids. We must do better by kids of all ability levels. Why do we have special education on one end of the intelligence scale and not on the other end?? Exceptionally gifted kids are roughly 1/1000. Which means that most schools would have several, yet virtually no schools do anything to help these kids.
An example: my school district has a math/science magnet high school, but so many kids qualify that they have a lottery to give kids spots. This is because the standard is that kids have a C-average and be in the top 70% of standardized testing. This, in my view, makes the magnet essentially a scam to get gifted education funds from the state rather than an honest effort to help gifted kids. I could make similar points about most school districts in CA about their magnets and their GATE programs.
I think it is time to bifurcate our society into those who know what bifurcate means and those who don't.
Most of our country's math teachers don't understand math well enough to make it interesting. They think it is just memorizing 'math facts' and memorizing cookbook ways to solve problems. They don't see it as understanding the underlying structure of the world or as creative problem solving. They see creativity as something for writing class and understanding as something you get from reading textbooks.
So set up and teach your child math at home.
This is what we just did last week. We pulled our kids out of school because we were so disgusted with the "tall poppies" attitude to academic achievement. I.e, the idea that the flowers that stand taller in the flower bed need to be pruned to keep them in line... or that the kids who want to learn more need to be force to do work that the find drudgery just because they can't move ahead of the rest of the class.
My 2nd grader's teacher was complaining that he wasn't doing his math worksheets or playing the adding games in class. I saw one of his math worksheets where he was so bored that he looked up Roman numerals in one of his books and taught himself how to do the whole homework in Roman numerals... and then I saw where the teacher then made him re-do the 'right-way'. We've had similar experiences with his past teachers and the principal has a similar attitude that he should do the same work as everyone else in the same way.
He's been home-schooled for only a week, and now he's gone past the adding 1-digit numbers that they were doing in class and is now adding and subtracting three-digit numbers with carrying and borrowing. He has no trouble getting his math worksheets done now. He's even said that "This is harder, but more interesting so I like it."
AND I live in one of the better school districts in the LA area.. where the teachers are well paid...
I'm a left-winger and I used to be all against school vouchers... but now I've seen the light. We need real competition, and we need to bust the teacher's unions to get the bozos out of our school system.
It's not that parents aren't involved... It's not that teachers don't get paid enough... It's not the burden of standardized tests. It's that our nation's schools are run by a bunch of bozos who pay teachers on the basis of seniority instead of performance, bozos who disparage being elite academically, but celebrate athletic elitism, and frankly that among the ranks of our teachers are some of the dumbest people in our society.
Lemaitre published his paper in 1927, two years before Hubble published. He developed his theory and predicted Hubble's result before it was found.
All _scientific_ theories must be falsifiable, not just the great ones.
My point is that some theories come from an a priori assertion rather than being derived from empirical data. Relativity is that way.
From: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19159583
"Among his chief inspirations to think about the origin of the universe, we draw attention to his persistent fascination of light as the primeval state of the world. Although this idea was originally seen in a theological perspective, religion played no direct role in Lemaître's hypothesis of 1931."
His theory was constructed with mathematics but was inspired by a desire to find a moment of creation and his attraction to the concept that "in the beginning there was light". This does not diminsh the Science in his approach, but I bring it up to point out that religious notions can inspire theories that are real science... unlike, I.D. which is not science. Furthermore, even when science is inspired by religion, religious people may still reject it :)
Claiming that he based it on Genesis is therefore a notable disservice to the memory of a brilliant scientist whose work was often discounted by others at the time because they accused him of peddling Creationism disguised as science.
The Big Bang is clearly inspired by Genesis. Many great theories come from some notion that is built into a framework that produce testable hypotheses. Just because it comes from a desire to explain the Universe with a moment of creation, that doesn't make it "Creationism disguised as science."
Indeed. You got a problem with that?
No I don't have a problem with that... I like philosophy. I'm just saying that Science is very limited in its scope... which I think is a big part of why it is so successful.
Discuss Creationism and methods to reconcile creation with science in philosophical terms... not as Science, because such things are outside of the scope of science. (e.g. rocks exist, but they aren't food... so don't think of rocks in terms like food (nutrition, etc).. think of rocks in a broader context).
One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.
The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.
Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).
The problem is that in I.D., the intelligence that interacts with the natural world is supernatural in nature and beyond the scope of science. That doesn't make I.D. notions meaningless, but it does make scientific discussion of I.D. meaningless and a waste of time.
If human intelligence is 100% natural in nature then Science has hope of someday explaining how it arises... but rather if human intelligence has a supernatural component, i.e. a soul, then science will not ever be able to explain intelligence.
If the Intelligence in I.D. is natural rather than super-natural then the existence of this intelligence can be tested via Scientific methods. However, such a test comes awfully close to proving or disproving the existence of God. That is why God is to be considered supernatural and beyond the natural world and the realm of Science. An Atheist would be one who discounts the supernatural and a Theist would be one who believes in some notion of the Supernatural. An Atheist is therefore forced to accept Science, but a Theist is forced to neither accept nor reject Science.
<ok enough being polite... now I'm going to go into a Palin-induced rant-mode>
This is the philosophical framework of Science laid down by DesCartes. Proponents of I.D. are at best ignorant of what the word "Science" actually means, and at worst they are dishonest in their attempts to proselytize their religious views under the guise of pseudo-science.
We would be well to remember that the current scientific enlightenment that brings us the many benefits of modernity is but a small blip in human history. To protect our children from the brutish lives more typical of humanities 20,000+ year history, we must stand steadfast in our opposition to the mindless minions of conformity and orthodoxy who would force-feed us knowledge based on tradition and authority over knowledge based on reason, questioning, and experiment.
The problem is that if you teach creationism in Science class, what happens when you disprove someone's religion? Many types of creationism can be disproven by Science, because Science limits itself to the natural world and supernatural explanations are not part of science... What happens to that Science teacher in Wasila? I know what would have happened to a teacher that dared to disprove 6-day creationism in my home town. :(
If you're going to teach creationism in science class, use something like the Flying Sphaghetti monster to illustrate how it is beyond the bounds of Science and a waste of breath to even discuss as Science
What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. Science is a branch of philosophy that limits its scope to the natural world. Supernatural theories are beyond the bounds of Science... comparing your theory to Science is like trying to compute the nutritional value of a rock... or the arithmetic sum of a frog and a flower... it's out of scope and meaningless. The fact that most Americans don't get this basic tenet of Science shows how very bad our Science education is.
Maybe Evolution can't be proved true... But the Creationist story laid down in the Bible can be disproved in a few minutes. The I.D. people teach a version of creationism different from Genesis, one twisted and morphed from the Biblical story so as not to be so readily disproved... but what they're left with is something with neither a scientific basis *or* a religious basis.
We have myriad proof that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old (geology throughout the Solar System, radioactive decay, stars, the existence of heavy elements, fossils). Ergo Creationism is as de-bunked as the hypotheses involving abnormally large turtles. Heck, the Creationist story in Genesis isn't even self consistent.
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.