You make good points, but the fact remains that I still would have liked to have at least been exposed to the flaws in evolutionary theory in my biology classes when I was in school. And it IS being debated now among people brave enough to go against the established scientific community (very few, to be sure!), and in Dover, PA, and in the media. I just saw a recent cover of National Geographic which asked "Was Darwin Wrong?" Just go to the science section of Borders and look at all the new books questioning theories on our origin, including "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (I'm reading it in what little spare time I have and it's very compelling.) In school, I was presented with various theories (some stronger, some weaker) on the formation of the Earth and Moon, on the extinction of the dinosaurs - but only one on the diversity of life. It bugs me that a reasonable discussion of other theories is being suppressed because of a secular left-wing agenda. Schools are, in effect, protecting students from data which do not support evolution and denying them the opportunity to look at the facts and reach their own conclusions. It makes me glad I'm homeschooling - I want my kids to look at ALL the evidence and think for themselves, not just accept whatever indoctrination they are being fed.
I still would have liked to have at least been exposed to the flaws in evolutionary theory in my biology classesThe parts that are disputed in the scientific community is not really at a level that most highschool students could easily digest. If one would include what ID'ers and creationists say and dispute in science education, schools would also have to include other (scientifically) fringe beliefs in science education. There might be time for that if we added another year to highschool.
And it IS being debated now among people brave enough to go against the established scientific community (very few, to be sure!)Question is: how inclusive can the public schools be? If we are to take time to discuss every scientific (and even those of questionable scientific merit) dispute in schools, other things would have to be discarded from the curriculum.
I just saw a recent cover of National Geographic which asked "Was Darwin Wrong?"Yes, it was a very loaded question on that cover. You'd be advised to read the article though, and not only the cover. In short, it answers the title with 'Probably not - all the available evidence supports evolution'.
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (I'm reading it in what little spare time I have and it's very compelling.)When you've read the book, I can recommend reading the articles collected here: Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe.
Personally, I was as you put it "exposed" to theories other than evolution when I went to school, but I'm a product of the Swedish educational system. The creation myths from all major religions were discussed in Religion class, and we even had creationist give a short lecture in Biology class once (we pretty much shredded his arguments afterwards during QA, and he left disappointed). It was however a pretty advanced class, and I suspect our teacher only allowed him to come since he knew we could dissect and scientifially evaluate the arguments.
There are no more, nor less, "flaws" in gravity theory. Do you really want to spend bandwidth in an introductory 9th grade class on orbital anomolies and quantum difficulties?
And it IS being debated now among people brave enough to go against the established scientific community (very few, to be sure!),
It hardly requires you to muster the courage of Galileo to stand against the scientific establishment. Only the creationist side of this argument has a history of trying to win the argument by burning it's opponents at the stake.
Anyone who publishes to peer review is actually standing against the established view in some small manner--elst there's be no point in publishing--which is why referees try to knock them down.
Just go to the science section of Borders and look at all the new books questioning theories on our origin, including "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Ah, yes, Behe, Dempski and Johnson, the vanguard of science.
This is not science, this is a pretty thinly disguised new, more subtle attack of the creationist clones, largely sponsered by the Discovery Institute. For all their technical terms and math, all these arguments amount to is "if I can't think how it could have happened, it must be a miracle."
For a devastating blow-by-blow critique of Behe's arguments, try a book by a serious mainstream scientist who co-author's the standard college biology survey textbook, and is a devout catholic: "Finding Darwin's God" by Miller. In at least one case, Behe's predictions about unattainable complexity pathways had already been peer-review published before his book was printed. Not a good deal of benchchecking going on in that neck of the woods.
(I'm reading it in what little spare time I have and it's very compelling.) In school, I was presented with various theories (some stronger, some weaker) on the formation of the Earth and Moon, on the extinction of the dinosaurs - but only one on the diversity of life.
That's because there was a serious question in the minds of a fair number of serious scientists at the time, and the job of a high school science department is to impart what is going on amonst scientists.
It bugs me that a reasonable discussion of other theories
The distinction lies in the word "reasonable". On the available forensic evidence, it is just as "reasonable" to discuss UFOlogy, astrology, and Raelian n-dimensional transfer. We do not count the noses of the pigs at the trough to decide how to feed pigs, and we don't care how loud, or how popular scientific theories are with non-scientists to decide which we should teach our impressionable young in compulsory educational environments.