The debate over whether science teachers or school districts should include alternatives to the theory of evolution as an exercise of academic freedom is misguided. Teachers of science have a duty and responsibility to their students and society to include in their curriculum instruction in the principles of good science and the theories that adhere to those principles.
Good science is that which is supported by evidence, logical reasoning and can be tested experimentally. Good science acknowledges anomalies and uses them as a guide to future research, which, in turn, may support or refute the theory. Good science will go wherever testable, repeatable data and ideas will lead.
The theory of evolution itself has evolved over time as a result of observation and experimentation. As a refutation to the notion presented by Mr. Sivertsen that non-biologists do not have the background to speak authoritatively on evolution, I respond by saying that evolutionary science has been reinforced by research and findings in genetics, paleontology, physics, geology and biology.
Evolutionary theory, as it currently stands, is good science and has a place in our science curriculum. The question now stands as to what other theories explaining the origin of man have been presented which adhere to the basic principles of good science -- theories which have been tested experimentally and can withstand rational questioning.
Only those are worthy to be included in a science class curriculum,