Let's return to evolution. Before one attacks the theory part of evolution it is a good idea to understand what it is that one is attacking. Amazingly enough, the theory part is almost entirely unchanged from Darwin's original statement (particularly the first edition of the _Origins of species_--in each successive edition it was watered down a little bit to keep from annoying the truly religious-- Like his wife.) Rather than reading the original, an easier way of become familiar with the theory of evolution is to read Dennet's book _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_. Anyone who can finds a substantial hole in either Darwin's original book or Dennet's exposition would be instantly famous. All it would take is one hole. Such an objection has not been found by anyone in the 100+ years since Darwin wrote his book. In other words, the theory has had much fewer changes than Newton's theory has had.
The second part of evolution is whether it fits the world or not. This attack can not be done from the arm chair--it requires going into the field and showing that some other theory fits the data better than evolution does. Given how many predictions of evolution have been born out, any alternative theory had better be pretty close to evolution or it won't be able to fit the data that evolution has already fit. In other words, the theory that replaces evolution will be one that still leaves evolution as a damn good approximation.
Physics is hard to understand--it does require understanding some quite advanced mathematics. So the fact that people give up on it makes sense. This is not true for evolution. It is a quite simple and easy to understand theory. So what does bother me is that so many people haven't every taken the time and energy to understand evolution. Once they understand it, I really don't care if they believe it or not. If they understand the theory, they pretty much are forced to believe the theory part. If they don't believe that it is relevant for the world we live in, that simply shows that they live in a city where the theory truly isn't relevant.
But this isn't what people mean by "teaching evolution in schools." What they mean is teaching that humans evolve from apes who evolved from single cells muck. This has no theoretical content since no one can say why we evolved from apes. Further, it has very low scientific content since most of the species discussed are extinct. So this sort of lesson plan could be justified for indroctionation reasons, but not for scientific reasons. I personally view this sort of version of evolution as identical to teaching creationism. Teaching this sort of evolution or teaching creationism both are unamerican since they condone following authority rather than thinking for oneself. I personally call this the "religion of evolution."
So I think the easiest scientific theory to teach is evolution. It can be described to elementary school students in a fashion they could understand. So it is a great theory to talk about. I also think the science of evolution should be taught in schools. Dawkins describes a wonderful demonstration that he does with insects concerning camiflog. Other experiments can be done using currently existing animals. Hence they would relate to the world the student actually lives in. It would actually be science.
So I don't care about whether the religion of evolution is taught or not. If it is taught, hopefully a little theory and science will creep in. If it isn't taught, at least the students won't be confused into thinking that scientist believe that some religion should pass for science or theory.