We don’t start out mathematics education by teaching about mathematical logic and Godel’s incompleteness theorems. Most people who learn about mathematical logic end up learning basic calculus before they learn the set theoretic definition of a limit. Realistically, students need to learn a certain amount of the structure within a topic before they can engage in deconstructive analysis of that structure. This is partially due to the fact that they need a structure to analyze first and partially due to the fact that human reasoning defaults to realism – that there is a definite fact of the matter that is directly available to the senses. (That’s not how reality is, but it is the default view of reality.)
Similarly, when teaching biology I can certainly see the sense of teaching evolutionary theory as being true and not teaching creationism. While I can also see the sense in trying to teach scientific reasoning as you suggest I can also see the drawbacks. Students will largely not be able to analyze the arguments for and against evolution without first knowing a certain amount about evolution.
That the sort of education one gets in secondary school is largely rote and fact-based does not actually detract from the fact that it is education even if it’s not the sort of education you’d prefer. The fact is that teaching kids science by first teaching them philosophy of science and then having them do their own reasoning is an untested and potentially fraught method of education.
As far as the equivalency you draw between naive adaptationism and creationism, Isaac Asimov had something to say about that:
“When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
