Why not teach this as part of how the modern scientific method can
still, no matter under how good the intentions, produce biased results
or explanations? For example, if a scientist proceeds from a false
assumption based on a philosophical bias he could conceivably exclude
contradictory data, results, or explanations.
As an alternative, why not introduce the students to the medieval
synthesis/approach of science (which leaned heavily on the Roman
Church's claim to be the arbiter of revelation and interpretation), and
the modern synthesis/approach (which generally precludes anything of a
religious or supernatural nature), how the two differ, and the
shortcomings of each? In essence, what and why and not give weight or
preference either way, as in a comparative religions class.
Paul Durham