The great scientific debate of the 20th Century is relativity (or as it is known now, The Standard Model) vs. quantum mechanics. They are both terrific at predicting stuff and they can't both be true at the same time. These are in physics, and physics is a much more stable science than biology. But in all sciences, our best explanations change. This is no reason to overthrow the whole system and put superstitions at the same level as science.

Texan educators should take a good look at the International Baccalaureate program. IB programs develop critical thinking skills and scientific literacy. In Science in particular, IB has educators help their students look at how science is beneficial or not helpful in addressing particular issues. Students have to look at what qualifies as a theory as opposed to a law in science- differentiated from what constitutes a theory in common language.
I find the poll above a perfect example of how the questions of a survey themselves can set up a no-win situation. By making Evolution the centre of the questions, the issue is being polarized. Students should be taught to question everything from scientific theories to history texts (as they can be incredibly biased) to religious dogma to authority. By empowering critical thought across ALL areas, we will be sure to have a generation of competent independent citizens who will be able to lead us into the future.

Apparently no one cares.
Or the poll is broken.
I vote for the latter.

I think that along with questioning evolution, students should also be taught the other side of the slate, creationism.

This question is worded in a way so as to incite the readers. A better question would have been "How should scientific theories be taught?".

All scientific theories should be examined through the lens of the available data, or lack of data. Experiments are then designed to test the theory and revise as necessary.

Even your first choice panders to the misconceptions of the general populace, namely the "...Evolution remains a theory, not a fact, ..." implying that because an explanation is called a "theory" that it can be ignored if the reader doesn't like it. A theory is the best explanation currently available for the data that is known. Does anyone really question the "Theory of Gravity"?

Overall, a disappointing survey.

Science is always about doubt. Scientists debate the various sub-theories of evolution and would not ever just believe.

We have been forced into a corner of yes or no on this issue because religious belief is brought into the picture.

There is no where in science for belief. We do not believe in evolution.

We accept the theory of evolution as a legitimate predictive model, which it has been shown to be.

Please rephrase your question as:

Should students be encouraged to look at belief systems in science classes or be restricted to testable scientific theories?

The answer for all science teachers should always be testable scientific theories.

Yes. Students should be taught to question and ask questions since it serves only to enhance learning. We should not think that questioning current scientific data is an adverse thing. There was a time when man believed the earth was flat, that the only way to determine paternity was by blood type, that the only computer was anything but personal, and we could never have comprehended the vastness of our universe, until someone examined the existing data and questioned it; therefore, we know the Earth is round, have DNA testing and laptops, and a Hubble telescope, that has sent us pictures of our ever growing universe.

It appears that not only our universe, but our very genetic makeup are far more advanced than we realized. And Theory of Evolution leaves too many unanswered questions. I hope that science will continue to encourage students to search until they have found the answer to all of their questions- until they find truth.

Students should be taught to question absolutely everything thrown at them. It disgusts me when educators expect students to learn facts without questioning. Information does not become ingrained knowledge unless it is dissected and digested. It doesn't really matter what the theory or concept is, it's the fact that it can be discussed and analyzed by the students, that students can take different sides and give pro and con examples for their beliefs, that students learn to accept the fact that we all have different beliefs, and that's OK.

My comment is simple. Evolution remains the theory of evolution, not the fact. Unfortunately it is taught as the fact of evolution and any who might disagree with this obvious fact is pegged as a raving lunatic.

Creationism-Intelligent Design assertions are very vulnerable to rational
examples. Imagine Eve having the alleles A-1 + A-2 and Adam having the
alleles A-3 + A-4. With these four alleles of the "A"-gene, Cain and Able
could only be allelotypes A-1:A-3 or A-1:A-4 or A-2:A-3 or A-2:A-4. They
could not be any of the 4 homozygotes, exempli gratia, A-1:A-1 nor the
heterozygotes A-1:A-2 nor A-3:A-4, the allelotypes of their parents. Let
us not get oedipally sidetracked by suggesting that our genetic roots are
incestuoua. Today, if we examine this locus for the "A"-gene amomgst the
25,000 +:- human loci, assume that all possible 10 allelotypes are present.
Did Abel also pass his alleles on to his offspring before his brother
Cain slew him? If not, did an allelic bottleneck arise. What if we
determine that some individuals have 2 mutant alleles, A-5 or A-6 that
been added to the 4 Edenic alleles? "MUTATION", blasphemy! Now we
have the potential for 21 allelotypes!!! Of course, if Eve had the
sex-chromosomes X:X and Adam X:y and the "y" chromosome is a reduced
"X", what is the logical, cytological conclusion? Adam arose from
Eve's "spare rib." Some have described the reduced "y" as a DEGENERATE
chromosome, but let us not be too censorious. Imputed incestuousness
should not be demonically conflated with degeneracy, n'est-ce pas?
If we are in the "end-times" and Armageddon is going digital, why be
rational?