For someone who lives in a trendy glass subdivision, Satoshi, you have a really active pitching arm. Sociology and feminism -- as if those were monolithic enterprises -- are almost wholly incorrect? Did you really have anything substantial to say here, or did you hit the “sensational ideological overgeneralization” macro again? (Boy, that key must be getting worn out by now...)
Intelligent students confronted with comprehensive and accurate views of "evolutionary psychology" and "sociology" would, I hope, see the strengths and flaws in each, recognize the tendency within each toward speculative post hoc rationalization, understand how each has practioners that confuse spurious correlations with findings of practical importance, and avoid the untenable deterministic positions espoused by the publicity hounds in each.
As for me, I've been trained as a biologist and as a social psychologist, and I believe in the value of multiple epistemologies. So am I stupid, or just kidding myself, or what? (And just out of interest, do you think that Asian studies programs are useless as well? After all, what can they teach us that we can't learn from studying Western traditions of history and psychology?)
You also seem to be dreaming about a world in which:
(1) The number of class topics covered is orthogonal to the time alloted in the classroom.
“Teaching the controversy” means sacrificing other curriculum, and by its very nature ID ‘theory’ will tend to swallow more class time than, say, learning about the functions of endoplasmic reticulum. Furthermore, there are dozens of mutually-exclusive religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives: young-earth, old-earth, day-age, alien seeding, geocentrism, solipsism, etc.
So, brass tacks time... How many of those alternative theories do you want taught, and in how much detail? What traditional material would you advise biology teachers to drop from their lesson plans to make room for humanity's non-scientific creation myths?
(2) Science educators have good enough understanding of both the details of modern evolution theory and research (e.g., speciation mechanisms) and all of the relevant ID terminology (e.g., “irreducible complexity”), so that they will present each position charitably, comprehensibly, and carefully.
Let me head off your response at the pass: of course they should have this understanding. But do they? And can they present these ideas at an appropriate level for their audience?
(3) Science educators have deep knowledge of (and at least a tiny bit of respect for) varied cultural and religious traditions, and thus are able to spur a discussion that will ultimately create more light than heat.
You’re an expert... Could you do this? I have my doubts. (See “sensational ideological overgeneralization”, above.) Please find me an example of a public debate on this issue that actually led to deeper thinking on each side, rather than re-entrenchment.
Also, as a practical point, when is a student psychologically mature enough to participate in a dialogue like this? Of course we can and should challenge students’ ideas, but should we mandate that creationists feel like you would in a Women’s Studies course? (“What? This is all just P.C. man-bashing! I can’t learn anything from these liberal feminazis!”)
(4) Inclusion in curriculum does not give legitimacy to bad ideas, and (5) ID isn’t a wedge issue.
As “Nigel” said in your comments section, the long-term agenda of ID proponents -- or, at least, the most politically active ones -- is to establish a society that is less (not more) permissive of diverse thought. By including ID in the science classroom in the name of openness, you are assisting the ultimate goal of the ID movement: to replace naturalistic evolution as a unifying theory within modern science. Now, I doubt they will achieve said goal, because the evidence isn't on their side. Evolutionary theory has long withstood attacks from both without and within, and ID advocates mostly present repackaged versions of these old attacks.
However, the scientific impulse in this case (i.e., "let's have a friendly inclusive debate!") misunderstands the purpose of the ID movement and the tactics of their leadership. They will not fight fairly, because a fair fight is not one they can win. By giving them an inch, you create a milestone.
