During the years when Fred Hoyle's theory of continuous creation was competing with the big bang theory, it was commonplace to refer to both theories. After Hoyle admitted that his theory had been disproved, it moved from a scientific conjecture into the history of science, where it is still be appropriate to refer to it as an example of a hypothesis that was put forward and proved to be false. No one went into federal court and got a judge to forbid anyone from talking about the controversy.
The same would be true of superstring theory. Some astronomers support the idea, others oppose it. No harm is done by raising the subject and talking about it.
Most educators would say that the socratic method is appropriate in the classroom. Putting ideas forward, questioning and debating them, is one of the standard methods of teaching. It teaches children to learn how to think for themselves.
"Putting ideas forward, questioning and debating them, is one of the standard methods of teaching. It teaches children to learn how to think for themselves."
Science is not debate.
Exactly! Curricula should reflect and report the current objective status of ideas in science. If ID, or some other non-evolutionary theory, should become a part of science in the future -- and this can be objectively determined by consulting the professional literature -- then it will be included in science curricula as a matter of course. If for some reason it's not, I'll join you in calling for its inclusion.
Until then quit the whining the constant attempts to include it on an affirmative action basis! After all this can only hurt the prospects, whatever they may be, of ID or creationism genuinely prevailing in actual scientific research. First it misallocates resources the could be spent on advancing non-evolutionary research to useless lobbying. Second, and even more important, it creates justified resentment and suspicion against the ideas among scientists when they see advocates avoiding scientific research and debate and instead pursuing political means. Historically that's been a pretty dependable indication of crackpottery.