I'd have more respect for this position if it weren't for the fact that the people who often advocate "teaching the controversy" (TTC) have an unusually large overlap with the people most vocally objecting to "gay propaganda" or "creeping socialism" in schools,
If they were consistent in their advocacy of equal time for diverse viewpoints, rather than just equal time for only their viewpoint, I'd at least feel compelled to explain the working basis of science, and the reasons for science education concentrating on highly confirmed and confidently held theories, and perhaps even agree that dogma has no place in science (Francis Collins quip aside) and controversy is a necessary, even beneficial, element of scientific research.
As it stands though, I can barely muster reason enough to refrain from calling them hypocritical fucktards.
You can't just "put everything out there" and then have a sensible discussion if the people you want to hold that discussion are not sufficiently versed in ways and means of science to evaluate that "everything". But this is exactly what TTC advocates want to prevent in their audience, if you properly know and understand the TOE, the supposedly controversial aspects of it raised by IDists are laughable. But if you visit upon them the curse of (Ken) Ham, and fill them with misconceptions and misinformation early, they'll happily trot out their tired arguments and apologetic nonsense for life, in some cases,
I'm all for a sensible discussion of ID in the classroom, but I don't think people like Kosh131 are. They only want an opportunity to rubbish the good science, not to have their own delusion torn to shreds in front of the kiddies. Kosh's idea of "sensible discussion" is unfortunately revealed in his own post; it's just bullshit, and all he wants is the opportunity to pile it on deep enough to bury the facts before another child gets a glimpse of them.
