Exactly.
We've had this same argument so many times on FR that it makes my head spin just thinking about it. IF we decide to let every competing "theory" (but not scientific) into the classroom, there won't be time to teach much of anything that is meaningfully connected to reality.
It means adding the following courses to the already crowded curriculum:
Numerology in addition to math classes
Astrology in addition to Astronomy
Alchemy in addition to Chemistry
Homeopathy and Chiropractic in addition to Allopathic medicine
Augery in place of history
and so on...
There's no end to all the postentially "competing" non-scientific theories that can be shoe-horned into the curriculum.
The proper test is whether or not they are scientific, and additionally, in the context of primary and secondary schools, whether or not the theory is widely embraced by the scientists in the respective field of study.
Alas, and I thought I was making such a persuasive, novel argument.
The hubris of being a "newbie" I suppose.
Thanks for the update.
There's a cruder test: does the subject matter prepare the student for any useful work in the real world? That is, why would anyone study alchemy (instead of chemistry), astrology (instead of astronomy), creationism or ID (instead of biology), etc.? Outside of a few sleazy con operations, there are no industries that hire people who have specialized in these "sciences."
As I've posted before, the biotech industry, which is profit motivated (not ideological), doesn't hire "creation scientists." They do, however, hire tens of thousands of scientists.