No, if I am at war with anything, I war against how facts and evidence are perceived and interpreted.
A stone is a stone. That is fact. It is evidence. Yet, you perceive it to be ancient due to the assumption of evolution. I perceive it to be young due to the assumption of a literal, biblical Creation. This is the root of the disagreement. It is a philosophical difference, and it is an irreconcilable difference.
"You think it's adequate to excuse not teaching the real scoop with your mumble about "I'd point them to a few sources from all sides and let them make up their own minds.""
The first part of your statement is represenative of the pride and arrogance that is wolven throughout the fabric of the evolutionaty establishment. They are so full of themselves, so convinced that theirs is the only way; that they have effectively dispatched G-d, as to be nearly insufferable.
What is wrong with a clear, unbiased presentation of opposing views? Even if they are nonsense, an unbiased presentation, side by side, with a rational view, would be sufficient to allow one or the other to stand or fall, based solely upon it's own merits. To do otherwise is a tyranny over the mind.
Again, you interpret the facts and evidence as proof that evolution is a fact, and that not to teach this proven fact is irresponsible.
You cannot accept that something other than naturalistic processes could be responsible for the universe. You cite as supporting evidence, an imperfect collection of facts and evidence, interpreted through your assumptions, and rationalized as proof positive for you thesis. Therefore, I am being irresponsible to so much as suggest otherwise. In fact, to even mention that assumptions color conclusions is considered a heresy. I have never, ever stated that a similar attitude should be adopted in the case of creationism.
Since evolutionists have all the money, control all the research facilities and educational institutions, and influence more politicians, I don't think any of you have to be too concerned about me, misleading anyone.
"Walt Brown's theories (and any other Young Earth theories outside of that Omphalos thing) aren't just inadequate. They're ridiculous."
As I said, when I first brought up Brown's theory, it does not pretend to supply all the answers. It has some merit and deserves investigation. However, because of the conditions stated in my previous paragraph, it is doubtful that anything other than superficial research into Brown's, or any other non-uniformatarian thesis will ever occur. This includes the evolutionists who subscribe to catastrophism, and there are several (no, I can't name one, but their work has appeared in Scientific American and National Georgaphic. I have read them in those publications, but it's been awhile).
Anyhow, in the final analysis, the stone we both observe, remains a stone, no matter how we view it, as does the enigma of the Bombardiere Beetle.
This has nothing to do with evolution.
You would block the teaching of theories with merit, solidly grounded in converging lines of evidence, just to keep it fuzzy, to keep it "controversial" that your theory was overturned by the evidence about 150 years ago.
Is it "tyranny over the mind" that we don't let students decide for themselves between alchemy and chemistry? Is it tyranny over the mind if we don't let them decide between astrology and astronomy? Is it tyranny over the mind if we don't let students pick for themselves among flat-earth, geocentric, and heliocentric cosmologies?
The trick is you want to take advantage of people who have been given no basis for spotting how bogus your ideas are, how rooted in superstition. You want first crack at the gullible meat.
There was a day when kids were taught some form or other creation in schools all over the world, and every scientist was some form or other of a creationist. It isn't true anymore because the evidence overturned creationism. People who didn't want to believe what the evidence meant soberly considered it and realized that the picture was going to have to change.
And you think it's reasonable to let you pretend to high schoolers that nothing has really been settled since the time before Darwin published. What would you say to letting someone tell them that nothing has been settled about whether heroin is bad for you? After all, evidence is a matter of interpretation yadayadayada and a lot depends on your worldview.
I'm arguing with a guy who thinks punctuated equilibrium has something to do with Satan. I realize you're never going to get my point here. Nevertheless, I'm glad I'm not a teacher but I'm also really glad you're not one.