I don't think too many people are calling for a discussion of the Miasma theory of disease in schools -- so there's no much need to bother with that. Or the flat earth. Or the Fomenko chronology.
But there are a great many people (scientist and non-scientist) who would like criticisms of evolution discussed at least somewhat in schools. To shut them out of the marketplace of ideas -- when they are a large and vocal group -- is to show signs of fear.
But there are a great many people (scientist and non-scientist) who would like criticisms of evolution discussed at least somewhat in schools. To shut them out of the marketplace of ideas -- when they are a large and vocal group -- is to show signs of fear.
So we now decide what is science by popular vote? If we had a majority who didn't like dealing with that pesky pi, would we have to discuss criticisms of pi in math class? And they are not "shut out of the marketplace of ideas," all they have to do is come up with an alternate theory that is testable and falsifiable and that fits the known findings in the natural world.
As to "signs of fear," it is not fearful to refuse to refight old battles that are settled from a scientific point of view. It is merely efficient.
This is not a popularity contest.