Why teach evolution?

Reader David left a comment to this post:

I wasn't arguing in my post that we need to include God; rather, I was responding to the Washington Post's editorial, which predicted dire consequences for science if Intelligent Design is taught. The fact is, as you seem to understand, I can do the same science as anyone else , so their dire predictions are a stretch. "Why do we need the intelligent entity?" Well, if evolution is a satisfactory explanation for how we got here, then perhaps we don't "need" the intelligent entity. But that's a rather different from saying that the ingelligent entity does not exist.

This post links to an essay by a professional high school biology teacher, on why substituting Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theory for real science will hurt science.

At this point I can still hear the Creationist asking: "But does the science change? Does teaching science change? Does science not work if you leave evolution out?"

...continued in full post...

The science changes in that the moment the supernatural is used to explain natural phenomena you are exercising your religious freedoms. Science is not a smorgasbord in which you can pick over the parts you like and discard the ones you don't. Treating science in this manner means you're co-opting it to serve another purpose. This is disingenuous, unethical and not science. Does the science change? Science in the greater sense will be quite able to survive the transparent manipulations of Creationists. Will their (creationist) "science" be any different from mainstream science? Yes, obviously it will be limited in the conclusions that it will allow students to reach. Students will be cautioned as to how they synthesize ideas. Student might not be provided with the opportunity to think at the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Thus, they will lack independence, will tow the line expected of them, and see Biology as a boring pile of "stuff" to memorize. If the course attempts to make sense of it all by exhaulting Biology to the greater glory of God, then it isn't a Biology course but a sermon. Does the teaching of science change? Quite obviously and emphatically, yes. The creationist science course, due to the necessity of avoiding evolution, would leave concepts isolated. Biology would be no more than a course in natural history. Basic knowledge. Facts to learn. Boring as hell. And meaningless. When the Creationist then tries to unify the concepts by using the supernatural to explain everything - they've left science behind and the religious indoctrination has begun. By leaving out the concept of evolution in their teaching of Biology, the Creationist is guilty of an unconscionable disservice to the learner or, in their own terms, the sin of omission. Does the science not work if you leave evolution out? That's rather like saying does a car not work it you leave the engine out? Sure the stereo is fine and it certainly looks good just sitting in the garage, but it's not going anywhere is it? That's Creationism: sounds good, maybe even looks good to some, but it's not going anywhere. It doesn't do any research. It doesn't publish in any scientific journals. It's not undertaken by any science faculty in any university. There isn't even a Theory of Scientific Creationism or even a Theory of Intelligent Design. Creationism is simply not science. It's only function seems to be to dupe local school boards into leaving gaps in the science curriculum so that they can get a word in edgewise.

In essence, if you teach ID/IOT, you are requiring your students to give significant portions of their ability to investigate and figure things out. You are leaving them in a position where certain questions are off limits. As long as those questions are not important ones, we'll survive just fine without asking them (and thus, without getting them answered.) But if the questions are of any importance at all, the fact that people are forbidden to ask them can only lead to trouble.