intelligent teaching, not design, in schools

the evolution textbook sticker, recently banned, has gotten much unwarranted criticism (despite it's scientific inaccuracy). the sticker states that evolution is a "theory, not a fact," and should be examined critically. at common knowledge, scott beaulier worries that it encourages "students to discount evolutionary explanations." he asks,

What happens when they get to their first college biology class and make the "just a theory" argument in class?

what will happen to that student? she may be laughed at, but she will learn a lot, too, if she has a good professor. the point is not whether or not she believes in evolution in the end. the point is that her belief would be the result of a conversation, a dialogue, which is what science should be. science is not passive. we do not just absorb it - we do it.

it's silly to worry that a sticker directing students to think critically leads to discount of the theory. evolutionary theory is rigorous, makes common sense, and has stood the test of time. those truly in favor of science should welcome its examination. that's how science itself evolves, and it should be encouraged.

critical examination of scientific assumptions should be more broadly applied in schools, and not just to evolution.

exempli gratia, the bohr shell model of the atom. in junior high i was taught point-blank that this was how an atom looked, but bohr's model was disproved long ago and replaced with a more rigorous, accurate, theory about electron clouds. yet it was taught with such confidence, such arrogance. no one even mentioned it was up for debate. such is the state of education in general; don't question, just swallow.

i see others' points that diversity of education could help us solve this problem, but teaching some students one theory and others another doesn't seem the optimal solution to me. the best education would expose everyone to each scientific theory, and then let students poke the holes in it themselves, if they can.

why only every scientific theory? it doesn't make sense to teach religion in science class - most agree on that. divorced from religion, intelligent design would begin and end with the statement, "some people think that an intelligent creator may have done it instead." anything more is neither appropriate for science class nor to the advantage of any religion sect.

taking a more humble approach to knowledge seems a better solution, and shouldn't be applied only to the sciences.