Teach all the present concepts so no one will get their toes stepped on! That's the ticket.
Not all ideas are equally valid. Scietific progress is made by finding the models and theories that best describe the observable workings of the universe. Anything that doesn't meet scietific standards shouldn't be discussed as scietific. Scientific eduacation isn't about making people feel good, its about teaching them the estabished and supported ideas of science.
The Pope for instance, in 1998, stated that there is just too much support for Evolution to maintain an argument from Genesis. An argument which actually acknowledges a step by step unfolding of an evermore complexity in living things. Close enough. The Jesuits will attest to their concurrence in this, also.
That a large body of the membership in other twelve major denominational churches do not dispute the process of God in the context of Evolution should be expressed in the classroom. These church people are still able to maintain that God, ultimately through Natural law, is the founder of the creations we investigate in Evolution.
Religious support or lack there of makes no difference to the scientific endevour. The support of a church no more validates scietific theories than the disapproval would amount to discreding scientific theories. If the pope and others wish to view scientific theories int the light of their personal beliefs, that is fine. However, it doesn't mean that the theories somehow are now tied to those beliefs.
It should be emphasized as strongly, that it is the minority opinion of the Fundamentalist who see Creationism as truthful. These are bible people who most recently, in the last century, developed the concept of Literalism as a means to argument concerning scriptural differences with others,.
Creationism and a literal interpretation are most certainly NOT a creation of the last hundred years. Both creationism and literism were common belief for thousands of years. Many of the conflicts you see repeatidly with science and religion is that teh evidence repeatadly pointed to theories that didn't agree with the literal interpreation of the bible. Literism and creationism have waned in support for the very reason that the belief struture conflicted with the known evidence. However, there are elements of various faiths which continue to adher to a literist account, and disregard the scietific achievements of the last several centuries to maintain that belief.
As for the rest, what does a semantic arguement about the words of the bible have to do with science, and why should it ever come withint ten yards of a science class when it is obviously not science?
™ Version 4.2