>> move science education advocates say could make it easier for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S. classrooms.<<
The two are not analogous. TToE is a Scientific Theory. AGW is not (it meets exactly zero Scientific Theory criteria).
Just to make it clear, there are rigorous definitions of what a Scientific Theory is. The AGW “scientists” ignored all of them when labeling it a Scientific Theory. They were more interested in the politics and the money. Lots and lots and lots of money, just for cherry-picking data to produce the desire result.
And, no, a Theory is NOT a “grown up guess.” It is a scientific explanation of a large body of data and, as I said, has a series of rigorous tests (all of which TToE meets).
Beyond that, unless someone wants more information about how real science works, I sayeth nothing more.
It's not a good theory at all and it's models are quite defective.
Then, there's "evolution" and that's been hit with a number of blows over the years. First was the discovery of DNA. That forced some serious re-considerations of a great number of evolutionary shibboleths. Later (actually quite recently) scientists discovered the existence of epigenetics ~ worth reading about if you haven't had the chance ~ and this is forcing yet another revision of evolutionary shibboleths.
Just this year scientists demonstrated that rice (among others) produces bits of messenger RNA that can get through your gut into your blood stream and finally into your brain ~ and they tell you to "eat more rice". Traditional evolutionary shibboleths really aren't up to dealing with that one.
Just yesterday we discovered that baboons can read! Well, sure, you have to teach them words, but baboons can learn words, and what they mean!
Going through all the stories about that study I really had to ask myself what evolutionary force had worked through what processes of "natural selection" to give us baboons who could read BEFORE they could speak!
Frankly, it's more like DNA is one of these super duper chemicals that unfolds over time and self-assembles in stupendous ways ~ and it might be more appropriate to approach biological change over time as a function of self-assembly, and not of selection.
I don't mind Creationism being presented to students as a reaction against the inability to prove TToE (as you term it,) but would you agree that it should not be taught as science?