My position is not that science should incorporate the supernatural. My position is that science taught without a reference to other things that are not science, to things that are moral and religious, is an empty system destined to destruction, despair, and emptiness.
"No one knows how this happened, and no one ever will," is the opposite of science. What would be the point of teaching this at all?
The murder rate of young black men in my city is over twenty times that of young white men. Now, a number of things may affect that statistic, but I assert that in decades past lacking this rate of murder amongst the most vulnerable of our subcultures there was also something else lacking, and that was the despair that secular materialism breeds into its adherents. By teaching the opposite of science one harvests what is the opposite of science divorce from the rest of reality, which is despair. Science in not salvation, if it is alone in the context of life. Art is not science. History, or its understanding, is not science. One might say that philosophy is not science in the modern understanding of "science." Yet one is empty without art, history, and philosophy, devoid of "human-ness." Criticism of the flaws of TOE, or merely of the origin of species, is not necessarily detrimental to development; it gives one an understanding of the possibilities of existence, much as criticism of religion derives the same experience.
The rest of your post about the terrible, awful things that have been justified by the Theory of Evolution even if historically correct, is fallacious nonetheless. The TOE is an attempt to explain in scientific terms what we observe in nature. It's not a recipe book for a better society. Or moral instruction.
Though awful things have been justified by TOE and are historically true, I am inaccurate in assessing TOE effects upon the human condition. I think that is basically your assertion, sounding much like Dan Rather's assertion regarding the National Guard Memos: "They are fake, but they are nevertheless accurate." I agree that TOE is NOT a recipe for a better society; why do so many TOE adherents fight resolutely to suppress what may be a recipe for a better society? Teaching alternative explanations for the existence of life may be an improvement upon a singular explanation with serious flaws.
What we say is that it (materialism) is the only possible basis for the scientific method.
I agree, but if implication carries this principle beyond its competence, it is only fair to warn the naive of that fact.
My position is not that science should incorporate the supernatural. My position is that science taught without a reference to other things that are not science, to things that are moral and religious, is an empty system destined to destruction, despair, and emptiness.
Does this apply to math, as well? What's the moral precept behind 1 + 1 = 2? How about physics? If E=mc2 doesn't make us better people, should we ban it?
I have no idea how relative murder rates among various subpopulations of the United States have to do with getting the science in science class. I'm not advocating dropping history, art, music, et al., from our schools, I'm advocating keeping science in. ID is not science. It does not belong in science class.
Though awful things have been justified by TOE and are historically true, I am inaccurate in assessing TOE effects upon the human condition.
"Before the TOE there was no Hitler. After the TOE there was Hitler. The TOE caused Hitler. QED." I don't buy it. But if you'd like to apply it to the various depredations perpetrated in the name of religion (I wouldn't), be my guest.
I think that is basically your assertion, sounding much like Dan Rather's assertion regarding the National Guard Memos: "They are fake, but they are nevertheless accurate."
You're wrong. I am asserting you're using a logical fallacy, even though the facts you cited may be correct. See the Hitler example above. This is not remotely akin to what Dan Rather said, and I'm surprised you'd even attempt such a smear. Thugs will use anything handy to justify thuggery. Do guns cause violence?
I agree that TOE is NOT a recipe for a better society; why do so many TOE adherents fight resolutely to suppress what may be a recipe for a better society?
Not only is the TOE not a recipe for a better society, it's not intended as such, and no scientist will assert that it is. What is it that TOE adherents are suppressing that might be a recipe for a better society? If it's cramming religion into science class, that's what Islamic societies are doing right now. Are they better off for it?
Teaching alternative explanations for the existence of life may be an improvement upon a singular explanation with serious flaws.
The TOE is NOT an "explanation for the existence of life." (Repeat once for every time it's been posted here on FR. This will keep you busy for the next thirty years or so). If there ever is a scientific explanation for the existence of life, I will support teaching it in science class. But I will not support teaching non-science in science class under any pretext -- "we'll all be better off," "the kids won't kill each other as much," or "I just hate those lying commie, atheist smarty-pants so-called scientists." I hasten to add that I know that last is not your position, but there's another poster here at FR who seems to think that's actually a sound argument.