Thanks for your support (or edifying disagreement, as the case may be). I agree with your larger points, Alia, about education. We think that there are a variety of educational paths leading to the result of a self-sufficient, fulfilled adult.
One issue, as I mentioned up the thread, is that much of what is presented to children under the "evolution" heading is simply drivel ... giraffes stretching their necks, and the next generation has a longer neck. (If I get suntan this summer, will my next baby be black?)
In this context, I have to agree with those who are saying that evolution instruction to young children is intended as indoctrination. The full complexity of the issue is not being presented, and it couldn't be, because the audience isn't capable of understanding at their age level.
What's being "taught" is the materialist worldview, that everything happened without supernatural agency. Now if you believe that, fine ... but that belief is not the result of experiment, double-blind or any other kind.
I do not find the subject of "dinosaurs" for the young to be at all about indoctrination, per se. Frankly, my own kids couldn't watch "Barney" and because they found the "Barney show" boring. Mine were also very weird in that they exhibited not even the slightest iota of interest in Sesame Street. It was indeed problematic, socially, when my students were young. I look back now, and I think about this, and I realize their "Barney/Sesame Street" needs were being met in my school; so that when it came to watching "TV", they were far more interested in stretching their brains to other subjects.
As my students exhibited a readiness and a confidence to more fully explore the scientific world around themselves, I introduced Darwin. For each student, the age was different. I also used pub-ed materials, plus direct materials from Darwin into my classroom. Verdict from my students: Someone is lying. Here's what Darwin says, here's what they are saying about "Darwin". I expected hard results from my students (paperwork, products) but my primary method of instruction was Socratic.
Furthermore, when each student latched onto "evolutionary theory"- each then began a path of self-discovery into the world of free-will and choice -- and the nature/nurture arguments. This of course, led to their need to comprehend anatomy, physics, migration, endocrinology, study of ancient cultures, psychology, religion, current cultures, and socio-economics worldwide. And, this all led to their inquisitiveness into socio-politics. And for each child, the path was different.
Evolution is not a pragmatic, non-laden subject. It is indeed fraught with heaviness, much like the subject of "sex". However, studying physics, reading, math, subjective literature, classic literature is are perfect non-laden subjects which result in a clear path to activating parts of the cranium which needs be activated should the individual student become learned.
Teaching children evolution before they are comprehensive literate can be abusive to the psyche. It can lead to a non-interest in a range of subjects which WOULD and do serve to activate synaptic pathways. And this is why I reject the subject of "evolution" in the early years; outside a mere mention and a note that it is indeed a theory worth more consideration and study, but at a later time.
And yes, Tax-chick, lol... I can still recall those 11pm "can I talk to you about this" meetings.. and what was consistent with my students was this: During their evolution seminars, they became troubled, as is natural, as the very subject caused them to question say freewill versus akashic record types of things (pre-ordination). The sessions would go on and on and continue.. until at last each student was left with this question: What do you think? Do you prefer to perceive that you should have no inspiration but instead let life dictate to you as per DNA or "genetic inheritance" or... free will and hard work to produce and achieve dreams "undreamt of". And can you find a balance between these concepts? Is there a balance?
This type of individual training would NOT have happened at the "mass level". No way could it. Especially now that this materialistic-driven concept is being laden upon those who are barely literate and being forced to place a "knowledge" inside an area of the brain which perhaps has no synaptic pathway built to it. Does this area of the brain become frustrated then?
That would be a parody of evolution made up by someone who, for whatever reason, is opposed to the concept of evolution and wants to ridicule it.