[Leatherneck_MT]

You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. Your response just proved that.

I never mentioned anywhere in my post comparing ID or Creation with Darwinism

I said debate the Pros AND Cons of Darwinism.

The Ridicule started on the Darwin side of the aisle as it always does. I merely responded in kind.

If you don't object to both pros and cons of Evolution to be discussed in ANY grade, then you are the exception to the rule.

But it has to start early, otherwise it's simply indoctrinating young children to accept it as fact.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I never mentioned anywhere in my post comparing ID or Creation with Darwinism"

You didn't have to.

"I said debate the Pros AND Cons of Darwinism."

It's called the theory of evolution, and you meant the creationist/ID theological critiques against it, not any scientific controversies, because there ARE NO scientific controversies about whether evolution happened, or even on the main processes of evolution.

"If you don't object to both pros and cons of Evolution to be discussed in ANY grade, then you are the exception to the rule."

Early grades are too young to introduce the highly involved controversies in science about certain aspects of how evolution happened. The same goes for physics, or chemistry, or any other scientific theory where there are legitimate scientific problems still being worked on. Nobody is asking for all of THOSE subjects have *both sides* taught, even though physics is more in flux then anything in the ToE.

"But it has to start early, otherwise it's simply indoctrinating young children to accept it as fact."

Children don't have the knowledge to work through esoteric scientific debates. The last thing they need is for the science they learn to be muddied by ID/creationist theological *controversies*.