Hinging his thesis on rejection of ID and Creationism in science, however, was a nonstarter since extra-naturalism doesn't fit and philosophical discussions about things like ID are irrelevant. And clearly the Conservative base agrees with me.
I think that there should however, be a place reserved in the academic arena for discussion of ID, probably as an adjunct to history (since most high schools probably don't offer much in the realm of philosophy), that said, I further think that discussions of ToE should always be moderated with the caveat that "this is based on the best evidence that is available so far". Science teachers should never use ToE as a club to denigrate those of faith who feel that a philosophical explanation is possible, by calling it "stupid", or "ridiculous", as I have heard teachers do. They should also not present ToE as a "fact", any more so than they would the "Theory of Relativity".....
Expanding on this, I think that if a curricula is going to dwell at length on ToE as a required subject, the curricula should be also required to present alternative concepts albeit in a non-science environment. Similarly, if a lesson plan discusses the great religions such as Islam, Buddism, etc. it cannot avoid the same depth devoted to Christianity, as schools are constantly attempting to do.
Education should expose the student to the widest range of ideas possible, arm the student with the ability to think critically, and then allow the student to challenge each idea and reach his/her own conclusions as to the validity of each......
censorship of ideas is "indoctrination", not "education".......
doc