The most popular answer is to move the teaching of evolution to earlier in childhood (age 7 - 9 has been suggested) in order to 'immunize' (they actually use that word!) them against the normal children's tendency to 'see design in nature'.
You merely presume that this tendency occurs and then deny the issue of the Establishment clause in public schools.
You started this whole conversation with blaming big-science-ed for "pushing its way into our lives" Thats bullshit and you know it so lets not try to cover up what you said and try to ridicule my comments which are on point.
Science education has come late to the public schools and its been done it by court case after court case (which you seem to continually try to dismiss by either belittlement or just hitting your mind's "ignore" button)
If ya dont get it , or keep trying to deny it, Ill make it my goal to make sure you understand that the courts dont always support the way that YOU think and their rationale is pretty well reasoned.
What is derived from all these court cases is the following
Public school= NO TEACHING OF CREATIONISM / ID or some hybrid miixture based on "teaching the controvesry as an issue (as you so often surreptitiously try to do). Its religion based and is therefore not to be included as curriculum in SCIENCE. If a school wishes to include it in a survey of cultures course, that entirely ok
Private schools not publically funded =YOU CAN TEACH WHATEVER YOU WISH including Creationsism/ID or the "big turtle in the primordeal sea dropped the earth as a dung ball". The stuff the kids are tested on are amazingly elementary and concepts like evolution are asked in the senior level biology tests.
Speculation about what they "Oughta teach" or "a kids natural recognitions of pattern in nature" only has a place for your kids if theyre in a private school where you are free to mess with the cuurriculum all you wish.
Im familiar with the Pennsylvania system of public science education and its based on a "stair step" methodology, wherein teaching stuff like
"What is evidence"
"Ho do we use the scientific method"
What constitutes a scientific equation
Are concepts that are actually taught in the early grades and, while its not pwerfect, it doesnt just jump around that the kids wont have any concept of how science does its work before they are taught the actual concepts under investigation.
For the last 2 years it appears to me that youve been more prosyletizing this ID base of reality and you periodically slip in these "concepts" that maybe someone will just accept and then later you can pile on some more. Youre assertion about teaching something in second grade in order to stunt the kids natural tendencies has gotta be about as ludicrous a concept as any other ludicrous concept Ive ever heard.
Bill Nye has been singled out, targeted, and verbally assaulted with just plain unscientific CRAP by the Creationists .Hes handled himself with grace , humor , and overall knowledge of the way science works.
Hes written about his encounters and , I dont know where hes actually gone out hunting Creationists (sorta like Dawkins does) He is a spokesman who's basing his work on entertainment and the teaching of scientific knowledge. I can see where the IDers want to try to trip him up ,It makes great entertainment and if he admits ANYTHING "about how science doesnt know everything " his statements to that effect are played up as a "big hole in the scientific "theory of evolution". Being honest is not a weakness when the evidence youve got at hand Doesnt call anything of the theory into question.
I recognize its hard being locked to your beliefs in this matter with non-existent evidence while trying to debate science. BUT puhleeze, try to understand and recognize where the limits of science education actually reside and what tests all these past court cases have used to actually define what is or is NOT a religious basis of "science" (and is therefore not welcomed into public schools science curricula).
Noone is trying to indoctrinate the kiddies, the science curricula are based on a process of a hierarchical unfolding of more and more difficult and abstract concepts.
The teaching of pattern recognition already is part of the curriculum in arts at an early elementary level. (WHich of these things are not like the other??)
Q: Do you have kids of your own?. Maybe Ive been assuming too much about your understanding from experience about how we learn from our own larvae . Im sure youd be fascinated about how a kids mind opens up and begins becoming a huge sponge in the first two years. How a 6 month old blossoms into a talking reasoning self aware and curious being by 2 years old.(The recognition of pattern is a huge part of the "becoming sentient beings" process) So teaching something to thwart a natural tendency is kind of something Id expect from some Creationist fable developer, you dont usually sound that desperate.
But thats another story