We're realizing Allah of things here.

I will attempt to state what is true and perhaps we can agree. I certainly agree with you that issue is and always will be primarily of what is rather than what exactly it says. To teach children what is science and what it is not is the real purpose, as you state. No doubt you're in company. John Dewey himself wrote that "science teaching has suffered because science has been so frequently presented just as so much ready-made knowledge, so much subject-matter of fact and law, rather than as the effective method of inquiry into any subject-matter." Until children understand the latter, they won't accept the former's facts and laws. Period. In this sense, you're right to say that we need more than evidence. What we need, of course, is an argument -- in this case an effective method for determining truth in particular realms of knowledge. We happen to have this argument, and we have it because it works: it gets us want we want, and it gets us truth. If we need to teach it in a biology classroom in a lesson called, "how to not science," then that is fine. We have learned something. As you say, we should be doing this anyway. What we don't need is for people to actually believe in ID for it to be taught as a counterexample, just as we shouldn't encourage murderers because we think murder is law. This is why we shouldn't let these bandits of truth and beauty "go ahead" and teach their voodooism. History provides us with enough counter-examples, or what Nietzsche might have called the anti-monumental history.