1. So they understand what the current theory of evolution is.
2. Without this understanding, they could have no hope to ever effectively argue for or AGAINST the theory of evolution, or to be taken seriously in the scientific community.
3. What's the point of many classes? I'm never going to diagram a sentence in real life, why do I have to read all that Shakespeare if I'm not going to be an actor, why do I have to do all this math if I'll have a calculator, why do I need to learn about WWII if I'm never going to invade Poland, etc.
4. Why should any currently accepted scientific theory be taught, then? They are all so limited, trying to only describe a piece of the puzzle! They should only teach one big unified theory of everything in class, perhaps make it a math equation so there's little room for argument.
5. The kind of statement you made is what leads some to believe the ID side is equally happy with ignorance as with knowledge.
(I don't think all IDers are that way ... there are plenty that have serious concerns about the issue (usually because their teachers ignorantly stateed that the theory of evolution was fact, and didn;t bother to explain the basic scientific concepts between theories and evidence), and are trying, finally, to build a proper case for their argument.)
6. If we KNEW exactly what was going on, it wouldn;t be science :)
Those other things are functional, evolution is a curiosity, it is interesting to wonder about. It is more interesting to wonder about when we consider the catalyst.
4. Why should any currently accepted scientific theory be taught, then? They are all so limited, trying to only describe a piece of the puzzle! They should only teach one big unified theory of everything in class, perhaps make it a math equation so there's little room for argument.
Now you have placed me on the opposite side of the spectrum from what I've been suggesting.
5. The kind of statement you made is what leads some to believe the ID side is equally happy with ignorance as with knowledge.
Now you have placed me on the "ID side", I'm on no side.
Someone who is religious and would like to promote a particular religion should probably not want anything to do with creation being considered in school. I suspect that is where Santorum is coming from. I, being neither religious nor anti-religious, think that is exactly the place where creation should be considered, scientifically without the religious instruction.