Not at all. My point is that it's important to let children know early that science doesn't know everything. A fairly easy way to do that, other than to just say it, it so expose them to some opposing theories early on so they can understand that everything isn't settled. And as I've said, I think this would be useful far beyond the sciences. I have my screen name for a reason. Too many people are not taught to question their assumptions. That includes scientists, too.
I hope that's an incorrect read. But it leaves me puzzling over, what is your answer, if not the above?
Teach the limits of theories, the existing evidence, and explain what's simply speculation. At the lowest grade leves, teaching things in the context of "scientists think" rather than "scientists know" might be enough. At higher grades, students should be exposed to controversies and opposing sides of various issues. And as I said in another reply, I think this would help dispel the notion that science is boring and there is nothing left to discover or learn. Basically, teach science as something that's dynamic and explorative rather than static and explanatory.
As for Intelligent Design, I think the most basic thing it does is to tell students that science is not necessarily incompatible with religion. The fact that it pains many evolutionists to even allow that God might have some role in the process of evolution suggests that the issue has gone beyond science and has become a battle over religion. If science automatically excludes any consideration of divinity, science has become incompatible with religion and one shouldn't be surprised if religious people disagree and start to treat science as the enemy.
Uh, quite simply, until you figure out how to fund education at millions of dollars per student (K-12), some ain’t! You’re asking for utopia here. Every teacher will never have a doctorate to teach a subject (even in college they don’t). At some point, if they’re lucky, most kids will develop some critical thinking skills. If not, such is life.
Few will grow up to become scientists. The entire discussion is lost on a very large percentage of the remainder (and too many who do go that route, that's why we're having this discussion). The idea that whether or not “some” people might come away from a television show with a poor grasp of the science involved should affect whether it be shown or not, would imply no fiction or “edutainment” should be shown.
We must save them from themselves! They can only watch stuff containing long litanies of what everybody (besides the author, director, producer) feels should be included as catchalls.
Take “Shakespeare in Love” (to avoid limiting the discussion to science only, education is bigger than just science). How long a list of historians should be granted time in the movie, to point out the lopsided view of historical health/care it provided, or dieticians on meals, socialists on politics, and actors’ union reps to highlight the inequities of men only casts, et cetera, et cetera. All because, if they aren’t granted equal time, the audience may come away with a “slanted” perspective!
If it will make you happy, have every high school graduate sign a disclosure statement at graduation to the effect that they understand that much presented to them as “scientific fact” is NOT. (Most’ll still flee screaming from second hand smoke and remain convinced global warming will kill the planet in 50 years.)
I've always thought that any scientific subject should be taught with an "according to be best knowledge of current science" context. Of course, that context is implied if they first teach the students what science is.
It's the same for religion in the public classroom. What's the problem with teaching the Bible (or any other religion) under the context of "Christians believe that..."? Then you're not indoctrinating, you're teaching religion.