I'm sure Peacefulpete never meant to equate belief and lack of intelligence but he is certainly apt to answer for himself. However I find some of your more generic statements problematic, especially:
My first responsibilty though if someone comes to me as a Christian to learn about my faith is to teach them the basics of Christianity, especially when they feel they are being called to become a Christian themselves. Why would I want to give them first off - information that is to disprove Christianity? Would this make any sense to you? My goal is to upbuild others in the faith, not to stumble them.
While I understand that there is a time for everything, if you think the kind of "Christianity" you "teach" others can be 'disproved' by any "information" which is nonetheless worth considering, I guess you'd do them a favour by either searching the issue thoroughly before teaching it and / or (in the meantime) focusing your teaching on things which are not subject to be "disproved" -- i.e., personal and church experience rather than tradition or text history.
I personally found that the "pastoral concern" of many church leaders, resulting in hiding to the "little ones" some important problems they were perfectly aware of (especially in the field of Bible criticism), often backfires. As a result what people learn and regard as "faith" is not only "faith," but an imaginary set of beliefs which includes a lot of pseudo-science and pseudo-history. When at some point they get in touch with the facts through popularisation books, TV programs or websites, and then turn to their pastors who tell them they knew about it all the time, they have a strong feeling they were lied to, and are much more likely to reject all "faith".