Creationism in the Classroom and Indiana

The Indiana Senate recently passed a bill allowing for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes as reported by Fox News.  As with other states that have passed similar legislation, bills like this tend to attract national attention and the ensuing backlash will likely kill this before it gets any further (Science).   Even if a bill like this could make it all the way to law, I'm having a difficult time understanding the practical aspects of it.  Would schools districts introduce creationism into its science curriculum?  Not likely, but even if it did, and as the bill states, it allowed for Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Scientology interpretations of origins, who would be qualified to teach it?  How many high school science teachers out there can claim expertise on world religion and alternating views on cosmic origins?  Even still, what do these alternating views have to do with science?  There was a time when I favored the push to 'teach the controversy' and thought it was good due diligence.  What would be the danger?  But, scientifically speaking (and that's all we should be concerned with in science class), there is no controversy.  The controversy exists somewhere outside the lab.  That's not to say that evolution has all the answers and is without its flaws.   It, like any theory of science, is under continual revision and adapts to the accumulation of knowledge, but any honest approach to the empirical data available today will suggest an evolution of life that at least somewhat resembles Darwin's theories. 

I also wonder what the instruction of creation theories in science class says about the usefulness of science?  On one hand we teach the importance and practicality of science, of making observations, formulating and testing hypothesis, honestly reporting conclusions, and finally arriving at theories that best explain the observations, and then follow up with instruction in theories not based on observations, that are not testable, that weren't arrived at by pouring over the data.  All in the same science class?  Does good science (peer reviewed, repeatable, demonstrative) have value when bad science (imagination, hand waving, and conjecture) is legitimized as an equal counterpart? 

I'm not saying that creationism (non-evolution kind) cannot be true.  It may be.  I'm also not suggesting that it shouldn't be studied.  I enjoy the entertainment that is provided by 'fringe' science and I think it has its place.  I'm open to everything.  But, even though I find the hunt for bigfoot and the accounts of non-terrestrial experiences fascinating, I wouldn't want them taught in science class (not yet at least).  If science as we know it today is to be trusted, the probability that theories supporting the views of young earth creationists are correct are slim, which, as a side note, explains the demonization of mainstream science by certain young earth groups.  Science education (especially at the high school levels) should focus on available data, and if the data suggests a certain origin for humans, so be it.  As a Christian, I should accept that.  I am not forced  to believe it, but I should at least acknowledge the fact that science does say something about the world we live in and suggest a certain history for it.  What we do with what science suggests and how we choose to integrate it into our belief systems makes great discussion for the philosophy class that meets down the hall, I just don't see how it fits into a science curriculum, unless of course we are on the verge of a dogma shattering discovery, and then, of course, fringe will become mainstream and get its own chapter.