Thanks for the 'Steve' explanation. I thought the reference was to an earlier post to me.
It seems like the position you and others have expressed is that ALL scientists share a single monolithic, unchallenged viewpoint that evolution explains it all.
I've read the work of scientists who disagree. I think questions about evolution, such as irreducible complexity should be taught.
I think the questions should be seriously considered and addressed by scientists. I don't think they're far enough along to be taught though, otherwise you might as well teach every small question of every theory out there, which isn't done. Evolution is only singled-out for this treatment for religious reasons.
But let the IDers publish in peer-reviewed journals. I could see putting questions of irreducible complexity in the curriculum if their work withstands the scrutiny for several years, and if IDers stop resorting to subterfuge to promote their agenda. Be patient, as science considered standard today often took decades to be accepted initially.
Well, nearly all - that is the point of Project Steve (to which I thought "Steve barrier" was a reference - if not, my apologies for butting in).
Like you I have read Behe. Unlike you I was unimpressed. His argument is entirely made from his own astonishment.