Parents Protest Reprimand of Teacher Over Creationism : Education: The group says the district is violating the instructor’s rights, and that he isn’t teaching religion.

A group of Christian parents on Monday demanded that the school board rescind a reprimand of a high school teacher who has been accused of teaching religion to his biology class.

Members of the Capistrano Valley chapter of the nationwide group Citizens for Excellence in Education accused district officials of censuring John Peloza, a science teacher at Capistrano Valley High School.

District officials recently issued a reprimand to Peloza, saying he rebuts evolution and teaches creationism, the belief that God created the world spontaneously. That, they say, is a violation of state guidelines and federal law.

Peloza and his supporters say the district is violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, that he is not teaching religion and that he has not violated any law. They said he is only telling his students that no theory of origin, including evolution and divine creation, is observable fact and that they should decide for themselves what to believe.

Pamela A. Henkoski, a member of Citizens for Excellence in Education, said the district would not censure a teacher for supporting communism or abortion, so it should not censure Peloza for his religious beliefs.

“Our children are being denied a basic academic freedom by not getting all sides of this issue,” Henkoski said.

Another member, Jim Robertson of Dana Point, said the district’s children are being taught “the religion of evolution.”

“We will be interviewing the members of the board individually on this issue and will be interested to see where they stand,” he said.

Board members took no action and had no comment.

Peloza, 36, of Dana Point, has taught at the high school for seven years and is a finalist for its teacher of the year award.

He was was not at the meeting, but in a telephone interview Monday, he said he sees his reprimand as a blow against academic freedom.

“When I give my presentation I give two sides, one that we are here by chance and the other that we are here by design,” Peloza said. “I refuse to teach macro-evolution as fact, because there is no empirical data to support that, so I cannot do so with a clear conscience. Teaching evolution without presenting the other side is teaching it as fact.”

He said he is not teaching creationism but offering the theory that there is a design to life.

“I never quote Genesis in my classroom,” Peloza said. “I have taken God out of this.”

Before the meeting, Robert L. Simonds, national president of the 60,000 member, Costa Mesa-based group, accused district officials of harassing Peloza “because he is a Christian and they have an anti-Christian bias, which is as bad as a racial bias.”

He said his group will sue if Peloza is prevented from teaching theories other than evolution.

District officials denied any anti-Christian bias in reprimanding Peloza, saying they are only upholding the law. State guidelines for biology classes require that evolution be taught, they said.

“If a teacher constantly refutes evolution while referring to an alternative religious perspective, then that is clearly a violation of the state framework and clearly inappropriate, because of the First Amendment’s requirement that church and state be separated,” said William D. Eller, the assistant superintendent for instructional operations. “This has nothing to do with Mr. Peloza being a Christian. I am a Christian and there are many science teachers in this district who are Christians. They are not under this type of scrutiny.”

School district attorneys cite a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Louisiana law requiring that creation science receive equal footing with evolution in the public classroom. The court said that law violated the First Amendment clause barring government from establishing religion.

“The district will allow a teacher to discuss any scientific theory in a biology class,” said Geraldine Jaffe, attorney for the Orange County Department of Education, who is advising the district. She said that despite Peloza’s denials, he is teaching creationism. “Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. It is inappropriate to teach religion in a science class.”

Peloza and Simonds, however, say the Supreme Court’s decision supports their case. They said the court was saying that the states have no right to mandate which theory of origin will be taught.

Also in dispute is the state Board of Education’s policy statement on the teaching of natural science, which both sides interpret to support their cause. It reads, in part, “Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis or theory related to the origins of the universe, the Earth and of life (the ‘how’) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purpose or ultimate cause (‘the why’) are appropriate to the history/social science and English/language arts curricula.”

Ellers said that Peloza’s theories do not meet scientific standards.

“If creationism is science, then where is (Peloza’s) empirical data?” Ellers said.

“Those are the types of topics that should be discussed in social studies classes such as comparative religion,” Ellers said.