Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

Science deals with the natural, not the non-natural. That would be theology.Perhaps you are talking about theological theories ?

In science class, science is taught. The "non-naturalistic" view is not covered in science, that's covered in theology class. Science deals with natural explanations and only natural explanations.

Are you honestly proposing that children be allowed to question scientific theories? Like Einstein's, Newton's, Darwin's, etc.? Really?I think you have lost focus on what a childs role is in school. The child is there to learn. And while critical thinking should be encouraged, you have to admit, there are things that are just completely out of a childs level of knowledge, right? I would think questioning a theory like Einsteins is a bit too much for a child, don't you think so?Do you feel evolution is easier for them to question for some reason?Honestly, shouldn't the "questioning" of these theories be left up to experienced, trained and knowledgable scientist who know what they're looking at, and not a group of 5th graders?

Well, here's something to ponder. Consider what we might call a pure philosophical theist/supernaturalist: one who believes that there is a God, that God is the author of the universe, and that God can supervene the laws of nature. Let us also stipulate that our theist is highly intelligent, since the question is not what such a man might think given such a philosophy, but what he should think.
Now, my question is, to what extent should the conclusions of this theist differ from those of the naturalist?The answer is: not that much. If the supernaturalist inexplicably loses his spectacles, he will suppose, and act on the supposition, that there is a naturalistic explanation for this, just like the philosophical naturalist. In trying to hypothesize what happened to them, he will be a methodological naturalist.Unlike the naturalist, he need not reject a priori the idea that God sent an angel to bear his spectacles up to heaven, and will admit it as a philosophical possibility, but he will not attach very much weight to this. We stipulated that our theist should be intelligent, and this means that he will not commit the God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy.No, the difference between them will be that the naturalist would tend to reject positive evidence of a miracle, such as actually witnessing the angel carry his spectacles up to heaven. In that case, he would tend to dismiss it as a hallucination; if there were corroborating witnesses, he might appeal to the notion of "mass hysteria" --- or, which is psychologically more likely, he might stop being a philosophical naturalist. The supernaturalist, meanwhile, might more readily accept the observation of an angel (especially if independently corroborated) as proof that there really was an angel.When we look at the history of science, we see the attitude I have described in action. It is likely that some theists looked at a rainbow and uttered the Creationist mantra: "I don't understand it, so Goddidit" --- but their names are not recorded in the history of science. It is certain that some theists (the smart ones) looked at a rainbow, said "I don't understand it", and then went and found out.Now, the relevance to the particular question in the OP is this. Any data that are really sufficient to lead a naturalist to conclude that evolution took place ought to lead the supernaturalist to the same conclusion. He might maintain the theoretical reservation that perhaps a miracle was involved, but he would need a good positive reason to suppose that this was the most likely explanation. For a mere belief in the possibility of miracles does not lead a reasonable man to make them the default explanation for phenomena.That this is not invariably what theists conclude I attribute to two causes.First, we supposed that our theist was intelligent. This is not always the case. The God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy has a powerful appeal to the human mind.Second, of course, is the fact that theists do not usually start being theists because they have come to hold the philosophical position that I set out in the first paragraph of this post, nor are their further religious beliefs derived from these principles. Rather, they are taught from infancy to equate the existence of God and the truth about him with the correctness of their pastor's preferred interpretation of his favorite book.Nonetheless, it is the case that a thinking theist will always (provisionally) accept that the causes of any phenomenon are natural unless he has a positive reason for supposing otherwise. Hence, as I have said, any data sufficient to convince a naturalist of (in particular) evolution, should be sufficient to (provisionally) convince the supernaturalist of the same thing.

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic