In CA, there is a hugely expensive upheaval over this very thing, only it concerns bogus claims about embryonic stem-cell research. The South Korean "scientist" has been shown to have fabricated the research which directly led to CA allocating Three BBBBillion Dollars to promote and "capitalize". Now the research has been debunked, but the allocation lives on. The taxpayers are being forced to sue to prevent the money being spent.
The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.
Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."
It was the process of peer review that eventually exposed the fraud.
The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a step in peer review. It is not the end of peer review. It is an ongoing process. Cutting-edge theories and research (like stem-cell work) are more susceptible to actual doubt and controversy. Evolution, on the other hand, has been slowly established over more than 100 years of careful research. It is not a cutting-edge theory (though cutting-edge data continues to support it and elucidate it in greater detail); it is one with well-established evidence along many lines of inquiry. Surely you aren't suggesting that all the evidence supporting evolution is fraudulent? This would literally require a worldwide conspiracy lasting over a century between thousands if not hundreds of thousands of researchers.
Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."
All these but the last statement are accurate (though the first two are virtues of peer review, not faults). Science has generally been a very reliable journal; it just isn't perfect. When mistakes are found (as in any human endeavor), they are retracted and/or corrected in errata. Deliberate frauds that make it to this level are very rare, but can be difficult to expose; that is why the penalty for falsifying data in the science community is severe. The scientists involved will probably never be allowed to publish again. Their careers and credibility are (rightfully) ruined.
However, stating that this "doubt" lends equal credence to evolution and creation in a science classroom is equivalent to introducing two concepts, one which is 99+% accurate, the other 0% accurate, and saying they are both just as valid because neither is 100% accurate.