> You don't think that a theory that DNA is coded similarly to computer language is worth discussing in a science classroom ...
And what theory is that? Computer code is binary. DNA is not.
> my kids are going to find these things and other theories very exciting when they are old enough to study them.
I'm sure they will. They'll also be terribly excited about the theory that the Pyramids were built by aliens.
I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about Watson and Crick's discoveries about DNA and coding, as stated by the original author.
Are you seriously equating classroom discussion of the implications of Watson and Crick's discoveries in biology (all of the implications), to aliens and pyramids?
Biotechnology is making it hard to defend Darwinism - setting it on its head, in the words of Barry Commoner in this article. Reductionism should lead science closer to Darwin, not farther away...alas.
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/16-3commoner.html
Children whose science educations are denied exposure to ID implications, even as a controversy, are missing a lot, imho.